[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
- From: Alan Watson <alan@x>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:29:09 -0500
A long time ago, some people made the decision that #t/#f were in some sense better than #!true/#!false. More recently, the WG1 have made a different decision that #true/#false are in some sense better than #t/#f.
This decision is not without cost. If an R7RS Scheme writes a boolean datum as #true or #false, it likely cannot be read by a R4RS, R5RS, or R6RS Scheme. It is unrealistic and probably undesirable to require perfect compatibility between iterations of Scheme, but changing the spelling a fundamental data is perhaps unexpected. The WG1 needs to decide if this cost is acceptable, and if not either revert their decision to allow #true/#false or require write to produce #t/#f.
Scheme-reports mailing list