Andre van Tonder scripsit:

> I think the R6RS approach here is superior.  It removes a useless
> postulate regarding the behavior of portable programs and enlarges
> the space of conforming implementations.  In removing this
> weakness/restriction, it seems to me more Schemely, in the sense of
> the first paragraph of the introduction of R7RS.

I agree, and voted accordingly.  I was in the minority.

> I think that if R7RS wishes to go to the trouble of reintroducing this
> rather useless restriction, it will need to accompany it by some very
> strong justification.

You are mistaken.  The only thing the WG1 charter (our constitution; we
didn't choose it) has to say about R6RS is this:

     Insofar as practical, the language should be backwards compatible
     with the IEEE standard, the R5RS standard, and an appropriate
     subset of the R6RS standard.

Note the significant ordering of the terms.  When R6RS differs from
R5RS, we need a justification to adopt R6RS, not vice versa.
Similar wording appears in the WG2 charter.

--
Do what you will,                       John Cowan
   this Life's a Fiction                cowan@ccil.org
And is made up of                       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
   Contradiction.  --William Blake

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