[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] Fwd: Feedback from implementors?
- To: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] Fwd: Feedback from implementors?
- From: Alex Queiroz <asandroq@x>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:44:00 +0200
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <20110816103609.GJ2309@frohike.homeunix.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Felix <felix@x>
Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Feedback from implementors?
Cc: denisw@x, asandroq@x
Alex Shinn did a poll on the "scheme-implementors" mailing list
recently (a non-public mailing list hosted by google groups) and from
what I could see (not much, I assume most implementors gave their
opinion privately to the editors), many implementors seem to be fine
with the draft. It is not so different from R5RS, and the module
system looks straightforward enough (WG1 doesn't touch the tricky
issues like procedural macros and phase-separation, etc. - it only
requires "syntax-rules"). So, I think the draft is taken positively,
at least by those that aren't too committed to R6RS.
(Note: I asked to be unsubscribed from scheme-implementors, so I can't
give any more information)
Scheme-reports mailing list