10 minutes ago, John Cowan wrote:
> Eli Barzilay scripsit:
>
> > > I agree that it's nonsensical.  I emphatically don't agree that
> > > the job of this standard is to make all nonsense illegal.
> >
> > How can you agree or not agree with something I didn't say?
>
> One can agree or disagree with statements as well as persons.

To clarify, I never talked about any standard, therefore disagreeing
on the above is unrelated to what I said.

> > > R6RS is a standard that tries.  ECMAScript 5th edition and HTML5
> > > try even harder to, prescribing the exact behavior of every
> > > implementation on every possible string of input characters.
> >
> > (This is going from nonsensical to ridiculous.)
>
> Whatever.  Examine the standards for yourself.

The ridiculous part is that I *don't* care about them.

> > > R5RS, and following it R7RS, prescribes certain things and
> > > leaves others up to the implementation.
> >
> > (And this is trivially true about any standard.)
>
> Examine HTML5 and ECMAScript 5 for yourself; the above description
> is trivially false about them.

You mean that these standards don't leave >>anything<< up to
implementations?  That would indeed make my claim false, and it would
also be considered as a near revolution to have a practical language
that is truly completely specified.  I'm not holding my breath for a
proof of that though.  (But if this is the case, I expect the proof to
be far from trivial.)

> > No, I wasn't thinking about WG2, its charter, R6RS, or any kind of
> > incompatibilities.
>
> If you weren't interested in WG2, why speak of me as the chair?

I mentioned you as a chair in response to the childish reply of

| Ultimately, if you want R6RS, you know where to find it.

(and it's not the first time you replied with that).  So, yes, my
reply to *that* comment:

| This is the kind of childish reply that makes r7rs look like a
| childish response to r6rs.  Coming from the chairman of wg2 makes
| this kind of response worse.

is related to R6RS -- but it was not a part of what I had to say about
multiple values.  It was merely a meta-comment for you -- as I said,
you are the one who brough in r6rs (and others).

> [snip]
>
> Your guess was mistaken.

(Good, it has achieved its reflective goal.)

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

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports