From: Bill Richter <richter(a)fourier.math.northwestern.edu>
To: pierarda(a)iro.umontreal.ca
CC: Gambit-list(a)iro.umontreal.ca
In-reply-to: <20070815222526.GA4299(a)iro.umontreal.ca> (message from Adrien
Pierard on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:25:31 -0400)
Subject: Re: My R6RS vote
References: <200708141836.l7EIaEsN016313(a)fourier.math.northwestern.edu>
<78987D97-CDC5-46FE-B15D-F5D4F663CDA2(a)iro.umontreal.ca>
<200708151939.l7FJdblS030238(a)whitney.math.northwestern.edu> <20070815222526.GA4299(a)iro.umontreal.ca>
Roughly, DS is not important in CS for the Schemer,
Thanks, Adrien, and I'll take your word on this. Let's not have a
Math discussion (though your category theory sounds fun!) of languages
other than Scheme. The relevance of your remarks is that it's pretty
odd for the Scheme standard (R5RS) to use DS to specify the language,
since DS isn't important in Scheme. Clinger's mean-spirited FAQ that
Rush cited shows Clinger isn't a competent pure mathematician, as
Clinger failed to understand my simple results, even if he had the
legalistic skill to avoid posting any errors of his own. And I'll
repeat my question: what is this Scheme community which needs a
standard? I'm certainly willing to believe that R6RS is a bad
standard, because of the LC_v/DS indifference of the committee
members, but I don't know why we (who is we?) need a standard at all.