Re: [Scheme-reports] 6.4 control features: -map and -for-each procedures
Eli Barzilay 21 May 2011 21:22 UTC
10 minutes ago, John Cowan wrote:
> Andy Wingo scripsit:
>
> > Also, what is the motivation for having multi-arg `map' terminate
> > at the first empty list?
>
> Compatibility with the widely accepted SRFI 1.
Yesterday, John Cowan wrote:
| You are mistaken. The only thing the WG1 charter (our constitution; we
| didn't choose it) has to say about R6RS is this:
|
| Insofar as practical, the language should be backwards compatible
| with the IEEE standard, the R5RS standard, and an appropriate
| subset of the R6RS standard.
|
| Note the significant ordering of the terms. When R6RS differs from
| R5RS, we need a justification to adopt R6RS, not vice versa.
| Similar wording appears in the WG2 charter.
--
((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