[r6rs-discuss] Import choices: flexibility vs. discoverability

[Ray Dillinger]

On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 23:42 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Ray Dillinger scripsit:

> > This is a fundamental tension between WG1 and WG2, I think.  For WG1 
> > we want the ultra-simple language we can get by removing all the 
> > restrictions and treating everything orthogonally.  For WG2, you want
> > the restrictions for the sake of static reasoning/discoverability/etc, 
> > and therefore need a bunch of additional complications not needed in 
> > (but probably compatible with) WG1.  

> I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think R7RS is
> going to look like that.  Instead, there will be (per the charters)
> a contravariant relationship: every Thing One program is a Thing Two
> program, and every Thing Two implementation is a Thing One implementation.

Then, respectfully, I claim that whatever WG1 comes up with, will *not* 
serve the audience it was intended to serve.  

If WG1 scheme inherits the restrictions of WG2 without the additional 
forms required to deal with those restrictions, then it will be a
crippled language not usable for much.  Being a general-purpose 
computer language means either those restrictions are gone, or the 
additional machinery required to deal with them is present. There 
is no point in having a WG1, and WG1 cannot be used for serious 
development, if it is required for it to have the semantic restrictions
on forms that WG2 wants to have.

				Bear