On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:48:10 -0500, David Rush <kumoyuki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes I am, because once it gets out as a part of the standard, further
> innovation and improvement will be jeopardized by the existence of
> legacy code. This is a really big deal given how many issues in Scheme
> currently exist precisely for backwards compatibility reasons.

> Really, I would rather do this thing with deep integration, in WG1,
> and do it in R7RS - even pushing out our deadlines - than get tied
> into a large legacy code base.

In light of the current status of pattern matching in implementations and
our responsibilities as language standardizers, and not as language
designers, we will do better by passing on pattern matching for WG1 this
time around than to risk a poorly or hastily constructed solution without
the historical backing of implementations to support it.

	Aaron W. Hsu

--
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

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