[r6rs-discuss] Proposed features for small Scheme, part 1: a stake in the ground
Andre van Tonder
andre at het.brown.edu
Sun Sep 6 17:12:30 EDT 2009
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, Thomas Lord wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 16:37 -0400, Andre van Tonder wrote:
>> While all this would be very nice as a research project,
>> I doubt that it is a practicable or desirable project
>> for a language standardization committee to undertake.
>> Standardization is not the point to introduce new
>> or largely unknown or untested concepts, or APIs on
>> which no consensus is likely to be attained.
> Because SCM doesn't exist? Because the canonical
> three-register-machine operational semantics is a
> recent and radical speculation?
For an incremental Scheme standardization process with
a 90% consensus threshold, at this moment, for good or bad,
yes, and yes.
More information about the r6rs-discuss