[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] multiple values module
10 minutes ago, John Cowan wrote:
> Eli Barzilay scripsit:
> > > I agree that it's nonsensical. I emphatically don't agree that
> > > the job of this standard is to make all nonsense illegal.
> > How can you agree or not agree with something I didn't say?
> One can agree or disagree with statements as well as persons.
To clarify, I never talked about any standard, therefore disagreeing
on the above is unrelated to what I said.
> > > R6RS is a standard that tries. ECMAScript 5th edition and HTML5
> > > try even harder to, prescribing the exact behavior of every
> > > implementation on every possible string of input characters.
> > (This is going from nonsensical to ridiculous.)
> Whatever. Examine the standards for yourself.
The ridiculous part is that I *don't* care about them.
> > > R5RS, and following it R7RS, prescribes certain things and
> > > leaves others up to the implementation.
> > (And this is trivially true about any standard.)
> Examine HTML5 and ECMAScript 5 for yourself; the above description
> is trivially false about them.
You mean that these standards don't leave >>anything<< up to
implementations? That would indeed make my claim false, and it would
also be considered as a near revolution to have a practical language
that is truly completely specified. I'm not holding my breath for a
proof of that though. (But if this is the case, I expect the proof to
be far from trivial.)
> > No, I wasn't thinking about WG2, its charter, R6RS, or any kind of
> > incompatibilities.
> If you weren't interested in WG2, why speak of me as the chair?
I mentioned you as a chair in response to the childish reply of
| Ultimately, if you want R6RS, you know where to find it.
(and it's not the first time you replied with that). So, yes, my
reply to *that* comment:
| This is the kind of childish reply that makes r7rs look like a
| childish response to r6rs. Coming from the chairman of wg2 makes
| this kind of response worse.
is related to R6RS -- but it was not a part of what I had to say about
multiple values. It was merely a meta-comment for you -- as I said,
you are the one who brough in r6rs (and others).
> Your guess was mistaken.
(Good, it has achieved its reflective goal.)
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Scheme-reports mailing list