[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposed new SRFI for immutable lists
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt scripsit:
> There's also a lesson for everyone in the Scheme community, if they
> care to take it.
Some do and some don't: that's what makes horse races.
> At one time, Scheme featured `LABELS`,
In the pre-standardization period only.
> unhygenic macros,
> and `(eq? 'nil #f)`.
Deprecated from the beginning of standardization (R2RS).
> Fortunately, those decisions were discarded.
Indeed, the only case of a Scheme standard which was fully backward
compatible was R5RS.
> Given the general attitude of this process toward the prior Scheme
> standard, I guess backwards compatibility is only important for bad
> past decisions.
Of the 39 changes from R5RS to R6RS enumerated in the latter
document, 22 were adopted as a whole or in part, 11 rejected
as a whole or in part, and 6 received some other treatment.
See <http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/FiveToSixToSeven> for details.
That hardly constitutes wholesale rejection of R6RS by R7RS.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@x
XQuery Blueberry DOM
Entity parser dot-com
Abstract schemata / XPointer errata
Infoset Unicode BOM --Richard Tobin
Scheme-reports mailing list