[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
> 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.