Re: the rhetoric of "standard" Re: why standard scheme matters to me

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:

> Or -- the Guile crew might decide to make carefully considered,
> practical decisions about the dialect of Scheme they build.  They
> might choose to consider how Guile will interact with Emacs and other
> GNU software.  They might choose to consider how Guile will interact
> with Common Lisp.  

Of course, jimb's proposal *DOES* consider these things.  So far, all
you've said is "I don't like it" and declined my invitation to say
why.  

> They might choose to consider what kinds of
> programming conveniences they provide, vs. what kinds of
> pseudo-theoretical "cleanliness" they require.  They might worry about
> how to run libraries intended to be implementation-independent, such
> as slib and some of the SRFIs.  

Surely these are worthy things to do, and they are entirely
independent of whether Guile correctly implements the Scheme
specification?

(I'll say "specification" from now on, since the RnRS series is at
least that, and it is AFAICT the only one.)

Thomas