Alex Shinn scripsit:

> > Only trivially so. �Generative types are something really new
> > in R7RS compared to R5RS (though old in implementations), and
> > implementations shouldn't be licensed to omit them.
>
> We've already agreed that this does not constitute an argument.

More accurately, you said so and I chose not to dispute it.  That
doesn't mean I agree with you.

> The draft still needs to be updated to state that modules in the
> report may only be omitted in extreme circumstances (I thought I had
> done this).

Are you going to argue that every Scheme must, except in extreme
circumstances, support the whole numeric tower?  So much for Bigloo,
Chicken, SigScheme, Scheme 9, SCM, Dream, Psyche, and Wraith.  (Not all
of these are R5RS, but the tower has been around a long time.)

> R7RS is a revision of both R5RS and R6RS (we've taken text directly
> from both).  To say it is closer to one or the other is irrelevant
> - it is the seventh revision of the Scheme reports, and to call it
> otherwise is confusing.

It borrows from R6RS, yes, but it also borrows from CLHS.  It is, in
plain language, a revision of R5RS.

--
No saves, Antonio, loke es morirse en su lingua. Es komo            John Cowan
kedarse soliko en el silensyo kada dya ke Dyo da, komo          cowan@ccil.org
ser sikileoso sin saver porke.                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
                        --Marcel Cohen, 1985