I am satisfied with the approach taken by R7RS of being both small and
large.
Le sam. 19 janv. 2019 à 22:39, John Cowan a écrit :
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:20 PM Ivan Raikov
> wrote:
>
>
>> Isn't the difference with R6RS that R7RS-large draws extensively on
>> SRFIs which are indeed
John Cowan writes:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 3:34 PM Zelphir Kaltstahl <
> zelphirkaltst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am not sure I have a sufficiently informed opinion about SRFIs and
>> such things. How experienced should a person be, as to not simply vote
>> for something that superficially
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 3:34 PM Zelphir Kaltstahl <
zelphirkaltst...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not sure I have a sufficiently informed opinion about SRFIs and
> such things. How experienced should a person be, as to not simply vote
> for something that superficially might sound great, but actually
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:20 PM Ivan Raikov wrote:
> Isn't the difference with R6RS that R7RS-large draws extensively on
> SRFIs which are indeed attempts to codify existing practices?
>
SRFIs don't always codify existing practice, including the SRFIs drawn on
in past, present, and future
I thought the Great Compromise of R7RS was to have specifications for
both a small and a large language, so that everyone is happy (or at
least equally mad :-)) .
Isn't the difference with R6RS that R7RS-large draws extensively on
SRFIs which are indeed attempts to codify existing practices?
On
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 8:15 PM Per Bothner wrote:
For the record, I'm extremely leery of the more-is-better approach.
> We seem to be adding a large number of very large APIs, which seems
> to be contrary to the Scheme ideal of small well-chosen primitives
> that work synergistic well together.
On 1/16/19 6:27 AM, John Cowan wrote:
So what is happening is that people are voting for more rather than less, as
with the Red Edition. This encourages me that I'm going in a sensible
direction with the large language.
For the record, I'm extremely leery of the more-is-better approach.
We
Sorry, left out the voting link this time: it's
http://tinyurl.com/tangerine-ballot for the vote, and
http://tinyurl.com/orange-straw-poll for the Orange Edition straw poll
(guidance to the editor on what should appear in the next poll).
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 9:27 AM John Cowan wrote:
>
,
> gambit-l...@iro.umontreal.ca, guile-user ,
> srfi-...@srfi.schemers.org
> Subject: Tangerine Edition penultimate report: how I voted, how you're
> voting
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Well, there are
Well, there are two weeks to go on the Tangerine Edition ballot (cutoff is
12 noon UTC on Saturday, February 2). So far, 18 people have voted,
including me. For the Red Edition we had 30 voters, so I hope some of you
who haven't voted yet will take an interest and give us your views.
Remember
10 matches
Mail list logo
