[plt-scheme] Re: to define, or to let

From: Bradd W. Szonye (bradd+plt at szonye.com)
Date: Wed Apr 7 09:02:47 EDT 2004

Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> It is not about incompatibilty but interpreting certain clauses with
> an iron, eh, fist. For example, nothing in the report says that a
> Scheme cannot evaluate left to right. Or that a Scheme doesn't have to
> signal all the errors from invariant violations. So mzscheme does such
> things.

If you're referring to the letrec issues, then I think your summary
grossly mischaracterizes the arguments that Anton and I have made. It's
not at all about following the letter of the rules "with an iron ...
fist." Extensions are good, and R5RS even encourages implementors to
interpret "is an error" as an opportunity for extensions.

However, some of us feel that this particular extension is unwise and
that its cost/benefit ratio is highly overrated. I don't appreciate the
above response, which seems to blow off the opposition as a bunch of
language lawyers.
Bradd W. Szonye

Posted on the users mailing list.