On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Vincent Manis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Also amen. I frankly don't care if there's a loop macro in CL-Scheme, er, > WG-2 Scheme. > > It's already been decided there _will_ be a loop macro in the WG2 standard, > although it's more likely to be based on one of the Scheme loops than on > CL loop. > > And it will just be a portable library that users can ignore if they want > and > won't place any burden on implementers. Insanity. If it will be a portable library that places *no *burden on implementors, then it doesn't even need to be in the standard. The reason to put it in the standard is because different implementors will need to implement it differently in order to get correctness or efficiency. There is no need to put random libraries in the standard which can be efficiently implemented. I suspect you're not really being quite true to the facts here. How do you think it will genuinely place no burden on implementors? An implementation without it and one with it will have exactly the same maintenance cost? Really?!
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
