Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs

[Eli Barzilay <eli@x>]

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
    me.

-- 
          ((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