Scheme language standardization process
> that the "must" requirement is a more important one than > maintaining absolute backwards compatibility with R5RS. "Absolute backwards compatibility" is a red herring; I am happy with the "should" language in the charter regarding R5. I ask only that R6 (in its new name WG2) not be more privileged, so that WG1 can discuss these issues on their merits. But I do think that maintaining /the spirit of/ R5 and earlier Schemes is way more important than (turnabout) absolute backward compatibility with R6. In particular this means that there must be no hint of a phased evaluation model in WG1. Perhaps it will turn out that there is a coherent unphased language that nevertheless is downward compatible with WG2. If so, great! But if not, a slavish adherence to the charter as currently written will result in a WG1 language that nobody will use. The people who want super duper compiled macrology will use WG2, and the people who want a traditional-flavored Scheme will use R5. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports