robby at cs.uchicago.edu
Tue Oct 30 09:04:59 EDT 2007
I'm not sure if you're directing these questions at me or everyone,
but I'll give my answers (and then probably bow out). I think r6rs is
not the most pragmatic and internally beautiful thing, but it takes an
important step forward, imo, by filling in the language with enough
stuff to make it reasonable to expect to be able to write portable
programs (something I consider a flaw (or perhaps 'lack' is a better
word) in the previous standards). As far as the other question goes,
I'm not sure -- you'd have to ask the editors I suppose, but I think
it is clear that it is an outgrowth of R5RS.
On 10/30/07, Elf <elf at ephemeral.net> wrote:
> heh, thanks for posting this.
> i guess this begs the next question:
> is r6rs the 'most pragmatic and internally beautiful' thing?
> and have its innovations (or lack thereof) been the product of a feedback
> loop revising flaws in the existing standard, or is it something else entirely?
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Robby Findler wrote:
> > One answer to this was posted on the plt-scheme blog:
> > http://blog.plt-scheme.org/2007/06/r6rs-is-perfect.html
> > Robby
> > On 10/30/07, Elf <elf at ephemeral.net> wrote:
> >> this is a query directed at those in support of r6rs:
> >> does r6rs represent a manifestation of the Right Thing?
> >> reason for this query: it seems as though the major difference between the
> >> various factions boils down to the Rightness or lack thereof of r6rs. do
> >> those defending r6rs claim that it is the Right Thing? this is unclear.
> >> -elf
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> >> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> >> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
More information about the r6rs-discuss