[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
I would prefer to see this proposal be considered within
its appearent context, rather than as if it has been made independent
of the particulars of first-class environments.
I read the proposal and also had some conversations with Bill about
it. As far as I can see, it was an honest attempt at trying to
standardize EVAL such that it would be compatible with BOTH
first-class environment and "Pascal-like" implementations. I've known
Bill for a long time: if he wants to convince you of something he
would ram it down your throat. "Covert" and deceitful practices just
aren't his style. In fact, when I proposed some additional features
that might have made first-class environments necessary, he
explicitly told me that would be unacceptable, to him and others. I
perfectly understand this point of view.
On the other hand, I would strongly object if anyone were to suggest
that we disadvantage proposals on the grounds that it tries to simply
be COMPATIBLE with first-class environment. As long as the required
functionality is implementable without making anyone bend over
backwards, there is no reason to hold a grudge against something that
might make life easier for folks with first class environments. The
idea of suppressing a genuine technical discussion or experiment as an
attempt to avoid perceived dissent in the future has no place in the
Let's stick to the technical stuff and leave the political posturing
to those who enjoy it.