[r6rs-discuss] R6 counterproposal

[Jay Sulzberger]

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Sam TH <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:

> On 5/25/07, Jay Sulzberger <jays at panix.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Thomas Lord <lord at emf.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > R6 should be completely different from the current draft,
>> > in my opinion.
>> >
>> > 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:
>> 
>> Yes.  Let us keep Scheme Scheme.
>
> In which version of the Scheme report did first class environments
> appear?  Fexprs?
>
> -- 
> sam th
> samth at ccs.neu.edu

I address no specifics.  But I believe that R6RS so far is not
sufficiently exact, nor sufficiently minimal.  I also recognize
that I am a spectator, and not a worker.

oo--JS.