[racket] Running Racket in the R6RS mode

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 18 08:59:01 EDT 2012

On Jul 17, 2012, at 11:03 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:

> as noted in the following
> comment from Kent Pitman:
>  One problem was that Common Lisp was more descriptive than
>  prescriptive. That is, if two implementation communities
>  disagreed about how to solve a certain problem, CLTL was
>  written in a way that sought to build a descriptive bridge
>  between the two dialects in many cases rather than to force a
>  choice that would bring the two into actual compatibility. This
>  may even have been a correct strategy since it was most
>  important in the early days just to get buy-in from the
>  community on the general approach. The notion that it mattered
>  for two implementations to agree was at that point a mostly
>  abstract concern. There were not a lot of programs moving from
>  implementation to implementation yet. As the user base later
>  grew and program porting became a more widespread practice, the
>  community will to invest in such matters grew. But at the time
>  when CLTL was published, a sense that the language design must
>  focus on true portability had not yet evolved.
>  [from http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/cl-untold-story.html]
> We are at the same point in the Scheme standardization
> process.

Do you think it possible that Kent meant to say "a language
should never go thru this phase and because it did, Common 
Lisp withered away" -- at least I can imagine it as someone
who went to RnRS meetings thru this era? 

Posted on the users mailing list.