[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I think we're done with SRFI-105!
"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I think we're done with SRFI-105! Please post ASAP if there is some
> really important problem with the specification as posted. Unless I
> hear otherwise soon, we're done.
> My sincere THANKS to EVERYONE who commented on the spec or otherwise
> worked on it! I appreciate all your time.
> At this point, I hope that Scheme implementations will consider
> implementing it in their default distributions. My thanks to those
> who have already started this process.
The latest draft looks good to me. I have written and posted a full
implementation of SRFI-105 on guile-devel@xxxxxxx, and expect it to be
deployed in Guile 2.0.7.
I hope that other Scheme implementors and users will read SRFI-105 with
an open mind. In my experience, seasoned Schemers (and Lispers) tend to
have a knee-jerk reaction to any infix proposal, assuming that it will
destroy the special properties of s-expressions that make them superior
to other syntaxes. That is _not_ the case for SRFI-105. It is a well
designed syntax that deserves your consideration.
Thanks to David and Alan for working so hard on this, and to all those
who participated in the drafting of SRFI-105.