Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <xxxxxx@knm.org.pl> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> writes: > >> Great, so we can keep the existing types, the existing exact/inexact >> distinction, and provide space-constant functions as I suggest. > > Why not the other way around: that the default behavior is known, and > implementations may provide other fancy choices which must be turned on > explicitly? Nope. We should maintain consistency over time in the meanings of the functions. It is not a decent idea to have the next RnRS standard specify addition in a way which is fundamentally incompatible with its predecessors. I have no objection to a (with ...) wrapper which can encapsulate the new behavior if you want. What you are describing as "fancy choices" are, in fact, the way Scheme has always behaved.
