Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum at cs.indiana.edu> writes:
> The names of all the standard libraries have changed from
> (r6rs <something> ...) to (rnrs <something> ... (6)). Why?
>
> First, this is making the names really ugly :-). Having to
> type (rnrs base (6)) instead of (r6rs base) means adding this
> superfluous (6) to every single standard imported library in
> every library I write. It just feels like you don't want me
> to use it by making the syntax ugly.
Actually, you don't have to type the (6), at least until R7RS comes out,
even though it's probably safer. As always, beauty is in the eye of the
beholder: suggestions for improvement are always appreciated.
> Second (seriously now), if your motivation behind adding the
> version number is to allow future revisions to r6rs (before
> r7rs),
No, the motivation is to allow more possible sharing between libraries
specified in R6RS and R7RS.
> Third, this usage is likely to be doomed just like the
> (scheme-report-environment 5) of r5rs. It was 5 and stayed 5
> and got completely replaced by a new construct. r6rs should
> not have to worry about future reports, sorry.
Only history will tell. The fact that it didn't work out doesn't
invalidate the R5RS committee's worrying, by my take. I'm personally
hoping that R7RS will adopt much of the infrastructure of R6RS.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Wed May 23 2007 - 03:05:28 UTC