>>26
The interesting thing here being that I actually use R6RS and am therefore in a position to judge it, as opposed to Felix who has always opposed it by virtue of the fact that he sees nothing wrong with R5. I asked why
you has a problem with R6RS, if you had given me
anything I could have said "Fair enough". But the fact of the matter is, you don't have an opinion of your own.
So, my argument for R6. We already provide all this functionality in various incompatible ways in many different Schemes. History tells us that portability has been a waste of time between them. Leaving it the SRFIs leaves us in the lovely position of having SRFI 9 be one of the most widely supported of any, and yet almost everyone prefers to use their own implementations define-record-type. ERR5RS has been abandoned by all those who were so willing to trumpet the failings of R6RS and there is one implementation of it.
So I ask
you again, Why do
you prefer R5RS? What
in your opinion are it's failings?
I'd say that it's pretty amazing that you can have such strong opinions and yet no evidence to back them up, if that wasn't par for the course with programmers.