Thomas Bushnell, BSG scripsit:

> I think the whole concept is an insane departure from the guiding
> principle of Scheme standardization, which is to provide a small set
> of extremely powerful features.

That's why there's WG1 and WG2.

> Perhaps the WG2 thing language should be called "CL-Scheme"

We do need a name for the WG2 language, and Common Scheme actually
isn't bad.  Then we can call the WG1 language Diamond Scheme.

> and have a loop macro. :)

It definitely will, probably either Taylor Campbell's or Olin Shivers's.
No :-) at all.

--
You annoy me, Rattray!  You disgust me!         John Cowan
You irritate me unspeakably!  Thank Heaven,     cowan@ccil.org
I am a man of equable temper, or I should       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
scarcely be able to contain myself before
your mocking visage.            --Stalky imitating Macrea

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