On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:15:06PM -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Neil Van Dyke wrote at 05/14/2011 07:16 PM: >> Just to be clear, when I wish for R6RS to be shot in the gut and left >> to die painfully in a ditch, I mean that in the utmost nice and >> respectful way. :) R5RS was getting close to a gem (with a few warts >> and glaring omissions), and R6RS is this big thing that PLT ultimately >> did not embrace. With the effect that people have tended to start >> trying to do R6RS with PLT tools, but then wonder why there are rough >> edges and the PLT documentation is mostly full of these other things >> that don't seem to work in their R6RS program. > > To be further clear, I was not speaking there of the innate merits of > R6RS, but of the situation of the official standard and the most popular > implementation diverging. > > As someone who once went to pains to code portable libraries in a subset > of R4RS, I eventually decided that Racket was the de facto standard to > follow for now. I can always move my personal work back to RnRS or to a > different dialect, without too much pain, if I want to. For now, my > only pain comes from seeing prospective Racketeers get turned off Racket > and Scheme because they start off assuming they should use R6RS with > Racket tools and then get confused. That's why all the displaced > aggression with the gut-shots.
And why Elliott Cable's proposed documentation paths may hit tie spot. -- hendrik _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
