Re: Planned presentation at The Bazaar

["H. Tapio Rummukainen" <turvaton@postpoint.com>]

> significantly, there was a general agreement to form a
repository of
> documents standardizing various extensions to Scheme;
these would not
> be part of the RnRS standard but so-called RFIs
(Requests For
> Implementation). These will have the net effect of
standardizing
> popular extensions because implementors will be highly
motivated to
> satisfy the RFIs when adding extensions.

That's all fine and well, but supposing that RFI's become
exceedingly popular, what chance is there of Guile giving
up backwards compatibility in favor of RFI compliance?
It'll take a year or two for the RFI process to get up to
speed, and at that stage there will hopefully and
unfortunately be a lot of code depending on traditional
Guile-specific features.  All you can do then is either
say goodbye to Common Scheme or severely bloat Guile
by including incompatible versions of several key
libraries.

Hannu Rummukainen

-- 
Think negative!