Re: [Scheme-reports] "It is an error" is misleading

[Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@x>]

Hello,

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:20 PM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:

Helmut Eller scripsit:

> R5RS does not have exceptions and in particular did not have an error
> procedure.

Correct, but it does (as do R2RS, R3RS, and R4RS) use the phrase "is
an error".

This may be obvious to you, but the objection here is that the phrase "is an error" is confusing in R7RS-small because it also has an error procedure. This confusion did not exist in R5RS and previous standards. Of course if someone is confused, the WG can always point the difference out - but I think that the goal in writing a standard is to be so clear that you don't need to answer questions like this. So if there is a phrase that is a potential source of confusion for experienced Schemers, then it would be best to change that phrase, even though that change has no effect on the meaning of the standard.

> Is that your way to shut down criticism?  Good.  It worked.

I regret this interchange, and hope it will not prevent you from providing
further editorial comments.  WG members are a bit crabby after three
long years and seven drafts.

The WG has worked very hard, and I appreciate it. I hope it will take these comments as constructive criticism, meant only to make R7RS-small even better.

Noah Lavine

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports