[R6RS] Re: Why there are two syntactic layers

[Michael Sperber]

Marc Feeley <feeley at iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Let me clearly state my position.  My opposition to two syntactic  
> layers is extreme.  It would be unacceptable for R6RS to have two  
> syntactic layers, where one is a subset of the other.  In the design  
> of R6RS I strive to maintain consistency between all the features
> [...]

I still don't understand what you mean by "consistency."  Having one
layer a subset of the other seems pretty consistent to me---would you
rather have them completely different?  This is just how layering
works---you express upper layers in terms of lower layers.  The actual
subsetting of the syntax is just an additional bonus.

In your proposal, some features can be expressed in terms of other
ones, so there's also some kind of layering at work.  The only
difference is that, in your proposal, the primitive features are
intermingled with and indistinguishable from the derived ones.

So, in summary, I'm unclear what principles you'd like to build the
record proposal on.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla