40 minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Andre van Tonder <andre@het.brown.edu> wrote:
> >
> > As someone who has implemented the R6RS macro and module system
> > (in a form of explicit renaming system no less), it is clear to me
> > from this and other remarks that you and perhaps others on the WG
> > don't quite appreciate the technical ins and outs of implementing
> > macros and modules in a mutually consistent way.
>
> Sigh.  It's amazing how quickly Schemers resort to argument from
> authority.

Sigh.  It's amazing how strongly the r7rs effort is doing its best to
pretend that r6rs never happened.

> [...]  All I'm concerned with is making the best report possible,
> and that requires actually thinking out all the alternatives and
> implications of every decision.

But you're not the first person, and you're not the first committee to
do so.

[Yes, the above is pure flamebait.  Usually I wouldn't have posted it,
but seeing an official dismissal of prior work as argument from
authority is nonsensical when that prior work is the prior standard
effort.  A language with a series of standards where each dismisses
prior standards as "argument from authority" is a language that
deserves to die.]

--
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

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