[r6rs-discuss] R6 counterproposal
cowan at ccil.org
Fri May 25 15:21:22 EDT 2007
Thomas Lord scripsit:
> The addition of a few, parsimoniously chosen features
> eliminates the need for almost everything that is new
> in the R6 draft. Nearly *ALL* of the new hacks could
> be done as SRFIs, if only R6 would add these few OPTIONAL
Indeed, many R5RS features could likewise be removed in this fashion
(though I think some of your cures are far worse than the diseases).
However, this fails to appreciate the purpose of a _standard_.
We standardize in order to improve communication. There is no reason
why people can't implement their own version of LIST-LENGTH (e.g.),
but it appears in R5RS precisely so that there will not be a variety
of inconsistent implementations under an even larger variety of names.
There is nothing in any standard that requires an implementer to conform
to it, and likewise for a program author, after all. If you want R5RS
(or R4RS), you know where to find it.
In politics, obedience and support John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
are the same thing. --Hannah Arendt http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
More information about the r6rs-discuss