I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme
community. I am not speaking for the R6RS editors, and
this message should not be confused with the editors'
eventual formal response.
Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
> I agree with Andre. Having read the archives, I fully agree with Will
> Clinger's comment at:
>
> http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2006-April/001185.html
Reading that note out of context would give someone the
impression that I was opposing the (r6rs enum) library
described in section 19 of the draft R6RS.
Not so. I was opposing a very different proposal that
did not make its way into any public draft. (If you want
to see exactly what I was opposing, you'll have to track
it down in the editors' email; I'm not going to bother.)
I do not object to including the (r6rs enum) library
within the R6RS. I also do not object to not including
the (r6rs enum) library within the R6RS.
> Also, because (r6rs enum) can be implemented fully in an R6RS-enum
> implementation, and because the presence of (r6rs enum) is not
> essential to the surface syntax of Scheme*, enumerations can be
> distributed as a portable library separate from R6RS.
This is both true and relevant.
If (r6rs enum) were dropped, the specifications of a couple
of procedures in section 15 would have to be changed. The
nature of those changes is also relevant.
In a later message Aziz wrote:
> True, but what is the criterion for drawing the line between what to be
> included and what to be excluded?
Excellent question! As the question goes far beyond
(r6rs enum), I will state my own personal criteria in
another thread.
Will
Received on Thu Nov 02 2006 - 08:54:21 UTC