On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > This is for WG2, the "large" standard. The whole point of WG2 > is to provide standard libraries. If you don't think libraries matter, > free to ignore the WG2 effort and only concern yourself with WG1. It does not follow that everything which could be a library should be. Libraries should be in the standard when efficient implementation will normally be implementation dependent (so that a standard implementation won't do). In this case, you assured me that there isn't any need for a implementation dependent variation. > > How do you think it will genuinely place no burden on implementors? > > Because they can just use the reference implementation. This is not "no burden".
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
