On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Vincent Manis <vmanis@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Also amen. I frankly don't care if there's a loop macro in CL-Scheme, er, WG-2 Scheme.

It's already been decided there _will_ be a loop macro in the WG2 standard,
although it's more likely to be based on one of the Scheme loops than on
CL loop.

And it will just be a portable library that users can ignore if they want and
won't place any burden on implementers.

> The recent discussion on Posix, UTC, and TAI dates terrified me.

POSIX time is a very broken design which has caused real
crashes in systems, and I'm convinced it's impossible to build
a reliable system on top of it.  Everyone admits it's broken,
so it's worth discussing whether we can do something sane about
patching up the mistake.

We can certainly leave time altogether out of the WG1 standard,
but I don't want to incorporate designs that are broken and may
even eventually be fixed - even if it takes 50 years.

> Unicode is another example. Full Unicode support requires an internal
> copy of most or all of the Unicode Character Database, which, for many
> applications that just need to throw around a few accented characters or
> math symbols, is overkill. R6RS requires a relatively small subset of Unicode [...]

Actually, you have it backwards.  R6RS requires full Unicode support,
which was one of the (many) complaints against it, and is why the WG1
standard doesn't require anything beyond ASCII.

--
Alex

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