[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs

On Jun 14, Brian Harvey wrote:
> Well, since we're not going to reach consensus on this point, I
> guess we're just going to have to follow our charter and stay
> compatible with r5rs.

(a) I wasn't looking for a consensus.  I was looking to clarify that

    a1. Racket is not Scheme in general, but it *includes* a (pretty
        strict) Scheme.  (Therefore "Racket is a Scheme" is still
        perfectly valid.)

    a2. Immutable pairs is not some redundant exercise in academic
        onanism.  Even if it's subjective, it's not clear enough to
        justify a "NO! NO! NO! ..." reply, and it's certainly not an
        "attack on the core nature of Scheme".

    a3. There is no PLT boogeyman who will eat you.  Even if you don't
        finish your lunch.

(b) I have no part in R7RS (or any other RnRS).  I have no charter to
    follow.  The opinions expressed here are my own views and do not
    necessarily reflect the views and opinions of anyone other than

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

Scheme-reports mailing list