Scheme language standardization process
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:48:10 -0500, David Rush <kumoyuki@x> wrote: > Yes I am, because once it gets out as a part of the standard, further > innovation and improvement will be jeopardized by the existence of > legacy code. This is a really big deal given how many issues in Scheme > currently exist precisely for backwards compatibility reasons. > Really, I would rather do this thing with deep integration, in WG1, > and do it in R7RS - even pushing out our deadlines - than get tied > into a large legacy code base. In light of the current status of pattern matching in implementations and our responsibilities as language standardizers, and not as language designers, we will do better by passing on pattern matching for WG1 this time around than to risk a poorly or hastily constructed solution without the historical backing of implementations to support it. Aaron W. Hsu -- Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports