On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Vincent Manis <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a target="_top" href="mailto:vmanis@telus.net">vmanis@telus.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Absolutely no disagreement here. Pattern matching is extremely important, and I hope WG2 can come up with a clean set of pattern matching facilities. Having said that, I&#39;m reluctant to change (as opposed to cleaning up specifications for) anything defined in R5RS (or in some cases R6RS). C.A.R. Hoare once said something to the effect that the absolute last place to do any language design is in preparing a standard. This has always struck me as very sensible.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>The IETF has or had a rule that nothing was to be standardized without at least two independent implementations.</div><div><br></div><div>Much mischief with R6RS could have been avoided if there had even been a requirement of one implementation.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I believe this needs to be solidly established here for both WGs, and I think the steering committee should add it to the remit if that&#39;s not possible: nothing can be standardized without at least two independent implementations that demonstrably interoperate.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thomas</div><div><br></div></div>