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

The iron is on our side, just in case my language doesn't make
this clear. MzScheme interprets the error raising possibilities
as strictly as possible.

Otherwise I won't add anything on this topic. Matthew and the
rest of us make certain choices; we listen to our "customers";
if we think they are right we change; if we think their
arguments don't convince us, we move on and focus our limited
resources on those things that push this experiment forward.

Don't get me wrong. I find input on this list extremely valuable.
But we have N manyears, and that's that.

-- Matthias


On Apr 7, 2004, at 9:02 AM, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>
> 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
> http://www.szonye.com/bradd