[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)
|
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