On Sat, 21 May 2011, John Cowan wrote:

> Andre van Tonder scripsit:
>
>> No, the code would not break.  The proposed change (not requiring
>> a return value but still allowing it) would change little for your
>> purported user.  His preferred implementation will remain compliant on
>> this /without any change/, and he can continue to program as before.
>> The only thing that changes is that he cannot rely on this behavior as
>> being portable.
>
> Right.  That is to say, it works fine on all R5 implementations, but not
> on all R6 ones.  It is a backwards incompatible change.  Such changes
> can be made, but they require a threshold that was not met, and there's
> no point in moaning about it now.  If new *evidence* is brought forward,
> that's another matter.

Well, it is only backwards incompatible if you ignore the past few years and all
programs and implementations that took the trouble of adapting to R6RS
to some extent.  These implementations are important in the Scheme world.  And
let's be honest, they are more important than several of the more outlying ones
that the WG is taking such pains to drag the language backwards to accommodate.

But if WG1-voted decisions are written in stone as you say, then it makes little
sense for this discussion group to even continue.  What was the point then of
making the draft public?  I will henceforth stop my "moaning"/participation
here.  I wish you good luck.

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