[plt-scheme] to define, or to let

Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> >  I'd encourage taking standards seriously, too.
>
> This is only true for standards that are up to certain standards. In
> case you didn't understand my previous response, I don't think that
> this is the case with R5RS. And just as with run-away regimes, such
> times call for civil disobedience.

I have a different perspective on R5RS.  It's unusual for a language
standard, because there's no question it defines a family of languages which
have some significant differences among them.  It's not perfect, and it's
not complete.  However, some of the incompleteness has to do with not
overspecifying and unnecessarily constraining implementations.  Argument
evaluation order is one of those things, for example.

Some have claimed that this is a post hoc rationalization of a standard
which evolved as an uneasy compromise amongst differing implementations.  I
maintain there's value in the result, nevertheless.

Anton