[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Things used in S&ICP

 > Mail-From: MAIL created at 26-Feb-86 02:08:59
 > From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR%MC.LCS.MIT.EDU@tilde>
 >    Date: Mon 24 Feb 86 22:22:37-EST
 >    From: Gerald Jay Sussman <GJS%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU at XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
 >    I feel strongly that we should have >, <, =, because I used them in
 >    S&I.  I see no reasons why we should not also have other people's
 >    favorites.
 > Speaking of what's in S&I, there certainly are many things used in the
 > book that AREN'T described in the RRRS.  Namely, these special forms:
 > ...

 > Suggestion: document them all, each one very briefly, in an appendix, as
 > non-essential features.

I like this suggestion.  Like most implementors, we will want to have
a ``compatibility package'' for use with the book, but it seems
unnecessary to ``grandfather'' all of its forms and functions in the
standard itself.  Recognizing the book's variants in a non-binding
appendix will give notice that those names have unofficial but widely
observed meanings.  I also sense that the Scheme community may be
ready to eliminate some of the historical oddities in the compromise
worked out at Brandeis.

I worry, though, that other dialects may feel slighted.  Do we want to
list Scheme84's or T's variants in an appendix as well?  I don't think
so -- I feel that S&ICP is a unique case -- but there may be disagreement.

Thus, I vote (mildly) for the `=?' names rather than the `=' names.  I
also intend to continue to support the S&ICP names.

David Bartley