Re: JACAL, scm

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:

> Which is not a very good proposal.  It causes more problems than it
> solves.

Well, I'd like it if you could explain in detail here what problems it
creates.

It seems to have the following advantages:
 Unmodified Emacs Lisp code continues to work
 Unmodified standard Scheme code continues to work

Your proposal seems to depend on two things that I dislike:
 A preference for making users adapt the language they write in rather
  than developer time spent making things work right for all users
 A relabeling of standard-conformant Scheme code as "very finicky"

> Yes, but not at all concisely.  Unless to echo the orginal "compatible
> with lisp" requirement.  I can go on at indefinate length about why
> "compatible with lisp" is a wise idea, and R5RS relatively
> unimportant.  Doesn't seem like a good use of this list, though, given
> the orientation and activity of the current maintainers.

Jim Blandy's proposal seems to correctly make things compatible with
Lisp *and* conformant to the Scheme standard.