On Jun 14, Brian Harvey wrote:
> Well, since we're not going to reach consensus on this point, I
> guess we're just going to have to follow our charter and stay
> compatible with r5rs.
(a) I wasn't looking for a consensus. I was looking to clarify that
a1. Racket is not Scheme in general, but it *includes* a (pretty
strict) Scheme. (Therefore "Racket is a Scheme" is still
perfectly valid.)
a2. Immutable pairs is not some redundant exercise in academic
onanism. Even if it's subjective, it's not clear enough to
justify a "NO! NO! NO! ..." reply, and it's certainly not an
"attack on the core nature of Scheme".
a3. There is no PLT boogeyman who will eat you. Even if you don't
finish your lunch.
(b) I have no part in R7RS (or any other RnRS). I have no charter to
follow. The opinions expressed here are my own views and do not
necessarily reflect the views and opinions of anyone other than
me.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
