Isn't the difference with R6RS that R7RS-large draws extensively on
SRFIs which are indeed attempts to codify existing practices?
SRFIs don't always codify existing practice, including the SRFIs drawn on
in past, present, and future R7RS-large ballots. The original intention of the
Steering Committee, I think, had nothing to do with SRFIs; I simply decided
when writing the charter (which the committee approved) to leverage both
existing and to-be-written SRFIs in order to be able to create R7RS-large
piecemeal, which has always seemed to me the only practical approach.
That said, SRFIs often do refer to existing implementations, or implementations
of languages other than Scheme.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 5:15 PM Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/16/19 6:27 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> > So what is happening is that people are voting for more rather than less, as with the Red Edition. This encourages me that I'm going in a sensible direction with the large language.
>
> For the record, I'm extremely leery of the more-is-better approach.
> We seem to be adding a large number of very large APIs, which seems
> to be contrary to the Scheme ideal of small well-chosen primitives
> that work synergistic well together. People were unhappy with R6RS
> because of its size and that so much of it was invention rather than
> codifying existing practice. R7RS-large is the same - but much more so.
> --
> --Per Bothner
> xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scheme-reports-wg2" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xxxxxx@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.