[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the rhetoric of "standard" Re: why standard scheme matters to me
From: |
Maciej Stachowiak |
Subject: |
Re: the rhetoric of "standard" Re: why standard scheme matters to me |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 15:33:48 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On 08Oct2001 04:32PM (-0700), Tom Lord wrote:
>
>
> R5RS only had to pass the review of a small, self-appointed committee
> -- whose perspectives did not represent those of all implementors, and
> did not represent those with an interest in closely related
> technology, such as Common Lisp, or even, dare I say it, Emacs.
Guy L. Steele, the primary author of the Common Lisp standard, is also
one of the RnRS authors. I've read some historical notes recently (on
a discussion on comp.lang.scheme) where he strongly urged the RnRS
group to make #f and '() distinct, and called the #f / '() equivalence
in Common Lisp "a mistake".
- Maciej
- why standard scheme matters to me, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/10/05
- Re: why standard scheme matters to me, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/10/08
- Re: the rhetoric of "standard" Re: why standard scheme matters to me, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/10/09
- Re: the rhetoric of "standard" Re: why standard scheme matters to me, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/10/09
- Re: the rhetoric of "standard" Re: why standard scheme matters to me, Tom Lord, 2001/10/09
- Re: the rhetoric of "standard" Re: why standard scheme matters to me, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/10/09
- Re: the rhetoric of "standard" Re: why standard scheme matters to me, Tom Lord, 2001/10/09
- Re: the rhetoric of "standard" Re: why standard scheme matters to me, Bill Gribble, 2001/10/09