Re: [Scheme-reports] Three really picky points
Vincent Manis 11 Jan 2012 16:17 UTC
On 2012-01-11, at 05:42, Alex Shinn wrote:
> I think this reasoning is flawed. If we believe the
> names are bad, and that R6RS fixed the names,
> we should go with R6RS, not write an apology.
>
> R5RS compatibility can be broken in cases, especially
> where R6RS has already paved the way, and names
> are trivial to provide compatibility for since the module
> system allows for renaming.
+1.
A less-desirable alternative is to provide the R6RS names as
synonyms.
-- vincent
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
