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


> I'm spending too much time in standardization activities (in a mildly
> unrelated field, that is document representation and processing
> standards) to be able to let arguments pass by that only cite
> "consensus" instead of technical reasons for making a standard fuzzy.

> As a prospective user of Scheme, I'm feeling extremely uncomfortable
> with a standards committee that uses its own indecisiveness as an
> excuse for forcing extensive hidden costs on its customers.

> I used to tell students that the main difference between Scheme and
> other variants of Lisp was that the Schemers tried to do things right
> instead of compatible with what implementers thought to be neat in the
> late fifties.  If (eq? '() #f) -> fuzz, I'll stop saying that.

There are a number of things in Scheme that are "fuzzy" (ie, unspecified).
The (eq? '() #f) question is one case where many people think the result
should be specified, but technical reasons have been cited on both sides.

You think a particular solution is right, but other people don't.  The
procedural question is: how do we resolve disagreements of this sort.