quad scripsit:

> I propose that the syntax for complex numbers be changed to something
> more Scheme-like.

The objection to this is that no report proposes it and no Scheme supports
it, and there is an existing alternative that serves the same purpose.
As far as possible, standardizers should resist inventing new things.

The Right Thing in this case is to lobby Scheme implementers to provide
your new syntax(es) as an alternative.  If it catches on, it might be
standardized in R8RS, and if it *really* catches on, the existing syntax
might possibly be deprecated in R9RS and removed in R10RS.  That's the
way changes are made in standards.

So rather than working on us, work on the people who maintain Scheme
implementations.

--
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears!
America! America!  God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law!
        --one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools

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