Subject: [jbs@quiotix.com: Re: truth]
From: Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:25:01 -0700 (PDT)


Another perspective....

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 01:08:41 -0700
From: Jeffrey Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com>
Subject: Re: truth
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: f92cb4faa848e0d12eb483f1f26b0d5e

> No, it's fucking up actual work in the real world, as it stands now.

How can it possibly?  Nobody is forcing you to conform with R5RS.  

If there are good reasons for an implementation to differ, go right
ahead.  Lots of (almost) Scheme implementatations -- probably most, in
fact -- are actually "RnRS + A, B, and C - X,  Y, and Z."

If it is a *really* good idea, other implementations will follow your
lead, and then there might be some strong support for attempting to
reach consensus on a language specification which restores the old
behavior.  But that's not the case now.

[....]
------- End of forwarded message -------