[Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alan Watson (12 Apr 2012 02:30 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines John Cowan (12 Apr 2012 04:09 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Peter Bex (12 Apr 2012 07:49 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alex Queiroz (12 Apr 2012 07:51 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alaric Snell-Pym (12 Apr 2012 09:22 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alex Shinn (12 Apr 2012 11:52 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alan Watson (12 Apr 2012 13:02 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alex Shinn (12 Apr 2012 13:46 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Jeronimo Pellegrini (12 Apr 2012 13:58 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alan Watson (12 Apr 2012 16:08 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Marc Feeley (12 Apr 2012 13:09 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alex Shinn (15 Apr 2012 14:32 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines John Cowan (12 Apr 2012 13:57 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alex Shinn (14 Apr 2012 01:58 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines John Cowan (14 Apr 2012 02:41 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alex Shinn (14 Apr 2012 03:00 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines John Cowan (14 Apr 2012 03:08 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Alex Shinn 12 Apr 2012 13:45 UTC

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Alan Watson <alan@alan-watson.org> wrote:
>
> Hang on a second. I didn't say or imply that this was frivolous and I did not say or imply that you did this without thinking about the consequences. I just pointed out a cost and said you needed to consider it. Furthermore, one of my suggestions for mitigating the cost (having write produce #t/#f) explicitly left the new spellings intact.

Sorry, I was replying to you as the OP, but the
strength of my response was directed more at the later
replies.

> I did look for the rationale, but did not find any discussion of the implications for sharing data between different generations of Scheme. Perhaps I missed it, and if so I apologize for wasting your time.

This goes with the territory of any syntactic changes,
like the new symbol literals, bytevectors, and the
two (!) new types of comments.  I certainly considered
it, and took it into account when implementing the
syntax in Chibi for read only.

The charter requires we are backwards compatible
with R5RS, not forwards compatible.

--
Alex

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