[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The time has come, the Walrus said, To talk of many things...
Bill Rozas has posted the following to comp.lang.scheme in response
to my assertion that the old-fashioned macros were no longer relevant
given that we now have a *new* macro facility:
> This is not correct. The current macro proposal is in an appendix to
> R4RS. If there is another report in the future, the package will have
> to be approved for the main text, and I've heard enough grumbling from
> several quarters to expect some opposition. In the past changes have
> been made to the reports by unanimity, thus any opposition may torpedo
> the project.
I get rather tired of gossip and speculation. Here I have a published
report supposedly of some consequence, and Bill Rozas tells me that it
is actually a house of cards.
Now, I think it would be nice if you "authors" can clarify the future of
this macro facility [at least the supposedly agreed-upon upper-level] and
make its chances of survival known, so that those of us expending time and
energy into implementing and using it may be adequately informed. If there
are any doubts about its survival [I for one had not heard any such doubts
expressed until Rozas posting], the scheme community at large has a right
to know. As for those grumblings, I'd rather hear them directly. Perhaps
those wishing to grumble can do so out in the open so that we can all see
for ourselves what the problem is, and try to formulate some solutions.
... Deep concepts are only absorbed with | internet: email@example.com
active participation. Their power must be | alt: firstname.lastname@example.org
experienced, not passively viewed. - EOPL | phone: 416 736 2100 x 33976