Scheme language standardization process
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:12:14 -0400, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote: > Although some of the libraries were pushed through the SRFI process, > they were not properly marinated by being implemented and used heavily to > flush out design and usability bugs. Only on very rare occasions should > something be standardized that has not been in widespread use already. Indeed, I agree that the R6RS effort did not properly adhere to standardization principles of testing and implementing (and using in real life) before they standardized things. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider that necessarily ad hoc, since many of there work did have reasons and direction, just it didn't have the proper testing for it. And, I know that people won't like it when I say this, but I find R6RS to be quite usable in practice. Aaron W. Hsu -- Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports