Re: [Scheme-reports] 6.4 control features: -map and -for-each procedures

[Eli Barzilay <eli@x>]

10 minutes ago, John Cowan wrote:
> Andy Wingo scripsit:
> 
> > Also, what is the motivation for having multi-arg `map' terminate
> > at the first empty list?
> 
> Compatibility with the widely accepted SRFI 1.

Yesterday, John Cowan wrote:
| You are mistaken.  The only thing the WG1 charter (our constitution; we
| didn't choose it) has to say about R6RS is this:
| 
|      Insofar as practical, the language should be backwards compatible
|      with the IEEE standard, the R5RS standard, and an appropriate
|      subset of the R6RS standard.
| 
| Note the significant ordering of the terms.  When R6RS differs from
| R5RS, we need a justification to adopt R6RS, not vice versa.
| Similar wording appears in the WG2 charter.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

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