Scheme language standardization process
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 21:20 +0100, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote: > On 05/04/11 09:36, Andrzej wrote: > > > Personally, I think this should be addressed in R7RS, either by > > explicitly informing about limits of the specification (illustrated > > with an example like yours) or (better) by fixing this potentially > > erroneous behavior by removing 'else' and '=>' syntax. > We've heard a lot of reasons why each possible solution is wrong. > Clearly, we have a tough decision to make. Offhand, the only solution I've heard which preserves cleanliness and operates properly under hygienic renaming is to remove the non- head syntax forms completely. For an ideal lisp emphasizing clean design this is the clear "one right answer". This does however mean that quasiquote, unquote, and unquote-splicing, as well as 'else' and '=>', are design errors that have not yet been corrected. Bear _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports