Re: the rhetoric of "standard" Re: why standard scheme matters to me

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:

>        Of course, jimb's proposal *DOES* consider these things.  So far, all
>        you've said is "I don't like it" and declined my invitation to say
>        why.  
> 
> That is hardly "all I've said".  But that's part of the point of the
> design logs -- reasoning gets lost amidst rhetoric in email.

You haven't said word one about what exactly makes you think jimb's
proposal is not the right thing, as far as I can tell.  

But you keep saying, incorrectly, that the only way to have decent
interoperation between Guile and Emacs Lisp is to have (eq? #f ()).
It's just not so--there is another proposal on the table that also
achieves that goal.

If your goal is interoperation--then we've got it with jimb's
proposal--and, at the same time, we can be much more compliant with
R5RS.  Isn't that just a Good Thing all around?  

It sounds like you have a separate goal, which is that you're pissed
that R5RS clarified the matter by removing an explanatory note, and
you don't want Guile to join all the other many Scheme implementations
that implement it the way R5RS says.

Thomas