On Jun 25, Alan Watson wrote:
> Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > It is only your opinion that there is irony -- in my eyes I see
> > two improvements to the language, which is not ironic at all.
>
> That something is ironic does not mean that it is bad.
Right, but saying that "irony [is] of the guiding principles of the
R6RS" is.
> The irony is that in solving two problems (the lack of standard
> means to signal errors and the uncertainty that comes from allowing
> standard procedures to be redefined), the draft R6RS eliminates a
> solution to another problem (redefining set-car! and set-cdr! so
> that pairs are no longer mutable).
IIUC, your argument is: while R6RS solves the uncertainty that comes
with redefining standard procedures, it suffers from not allowing
redefinition of standard procedures?
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Received on Mon Jun 25 2007 - 13:34:00 UTC