I think the logic that leads to the comment below is flawed. In
particular, the R6RS editors tried to make a document that would
support portability as best they could. It was their clear, stated
intention. You might predict that they will fail to achieve it due to
lack of wide adoption, but this lack of wide adoption does not let you
conclude that they were unconcerned with it.
Anyways, I guess you already know that and were just baiting me. So I
really will bow out now.
Robby
On 10/30/07, Elf <elf at ephemeral.net> wrote:
>
> the question was directed at everyone supporting r6.
>
> what exactly is meant by 'portable', however, if only three implementations
> intend to support r6? portability does not seem to be a pressing concern.
>
> -elf
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Robby Findler wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if you're directing these questions at me or everyone,
> > but I'll give my answers (and then probably bow out). I think r6rs is
> > not the most pragmatic and internally beautiful thing, but it takes an
> > important step forward, imo, by filling in the language with enough
> > stuff to make it reasonable to expect to be able to write portable
> > programs (something I consider a flaw (or perhaps 'lack' is a better
> > word) in the previous standards). As far as the other question goes,
> > I'm not sure -- you'd have to ask the editors I suppose, but I think
> > it is clear that it is an outgrowth of R5RS.
> >
> > Best,
> > Robby
> >
> > On 10/30/07, Elf <elf at ephemeral.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> heh, thanks for posting this.
> >>
> >> i guess this begs the next question:
> >>
> >> is r6rs the 'most pragmatic and internally beautiful' thing?
> >> and have its innovations (or lack thereof) been the product of a feedback
> >> loop revising flaws in the existing standard, or is it something else entirely?
> >>
> >> -elf
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Robby Findler wrote:
> >>
> >>> One answer to this was posted on the plt-scheme blog:
> >>>
> >>> http://blog.plt-scheme.org/2007/06/r6rs-is-perfect.html
> >>>
> >>> Robby
> >>>
> >>> On 10/30/07, Elf <elf at ephemeral.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> this is a query directed at those in support of r6rs:
> >>>>
> >>>> does r6rs represent a manifestation of the Right Thing?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> reason for this query: it seems as though the major difference between the
> >>>> various factions boils down to the Rightness or lack thereof of r6rs. do
> >>>> those defending r6rs claim that it is the Right Thing? this is unclear.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -elf
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> >>>> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> >>>> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Received on Tue Oct 30 2007 - 09:15:08 UTC