[R6RS] Re: Why there are two syntactic layers
Thu Jun 23 06:36:17 EDT 2005
On 23-Jun-05, at 3:37 AM, Michael Sperber wrote:
> However, over the question of simplicity, redundancy, and layering, I
> don't see an alternative approach that's likely to get us consensus.
> Maybe this approach isn't going to get us consensus either, but we
> sure are completely deadlocked over the "one true record syntax"
> issue: The records I want are unacceptable to you, and the records you
> want are unacceptable to me. Do we still want to make progress? I
At this point and before we can consider submitting this proposal as
a SRFI, we really need all the other editors (Anton, Matthew and
Will) to enter the discussion and state their position.
Let me clearly state my position. My opposition to two syntactic
layers is extreme. It would be unacceptable for R6RS to have two
syntactic layers, where one is a subset of the other. In the design
of R6RS I strive to maintain consistency between all the features to
avoid people thinking of R6RS Scheme as a "committee designed
language" [*]. Two syntactic layers would be a huge wart in the
language and I will not accept that.
More information about the R6RS