[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
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