[r6rs-discuss] R6 counterproposal

From: Jay Sulzberger <jays>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 01:48:09 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Sam TH <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:

> On 5/25/07, Jay Sulzberger <jays at panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Thomas Lord <lord at emf.net> wrote:
>>
>> > R6 should be completely different from the current draft,
>> > in my opinion.
>> >
>> > The addition of a few, parsimoniously chosen features
>> > eliminates the need for almost everything that is new
>> > in the R6 draft. Nearly *ALL* of the new hacks could
>> > be done as SRFIs, if only R6 would add these few OPTIONAL
>> > features:
>>
>> Yes. Let us keep Scheme Scheme.
>
> In which version of the Scheme report did first class environments
> appear? Fexprs?
>
> --
> sam th
> samth at ccs.neu.edu

I address no specifics. But I believe that R6RS so far is not
sufficiently exact, nor sufficiently minimal. I also recognize
that I am a spectator, and not a worker.

oo--JS.
Received on Sat May 26 2007 - 01:48:09 UTC