[r6rs-discuss] R6 counterproposal

[John Cowan]

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
> features:

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