[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] "Language Changes"
- To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] "Language Changes"
- From: Andy Wingo <wingo@x>
- Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 11:43:55 +0100
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYN4fnUFEtGrVa-r7CjOvoZ12cDEpiViG_qoKG=U9x=f8A@mail.gmail.com> (Alex Shinn's message of "Sun, 6 Jan 2013 15:55:19 +0900")
- References: <email@example.com> <CAMMPzYN4fnUFEtGrVa-r7CjOvoZ12cDEpiViG_qoKG=U9x=f8A@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun 06 Jan 2013 07:55, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> writes:
> I would change the "Incompatibilities with R6RS" to "Differences
> R6RS", and be a lot less snarky and defensive.
> My preference is to remove the entire section about R6RS.
> It's the job of the small language to be compatible of R5RS,
> and the job of the large language to be compatible with R6RS,
> so this entire section belongs in the WG2 report.
FWIW, I agree with you.
Scheme-reports mailing list