[r6rs-discuss] r6rs is 'perfect'

[Matthias Felleisen]

On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Pascal Costanza wrote:

>
> On 30 Oct 2007, at 15:28, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>> It is amusing to read these debates though I don't think
>> it is productive in any way. Why don't we all spend time
>> on producing R6RS or ERRR5RS compliant Scheme implementations
>> and then use the feedback from these efforts to move forward?
>
> My impression is that some people think that R6RS already got a  
> number of fundamental design decisions wrong, even though they  
> could have be gotten right already. I guess it's not motivating to  
> fix conceptual bugs that, in their view, shouldn't be there in the  
> first place.

You are possibly right. But I am such an imperfect being that I  
actually need to get my hand on runnable code (i.e., work with a  
language and have others work with a language) before I can make such  
judgments. Back to code -- Matthias