

Thoughts on R7RS - gnosis
http://benjisimon.blogspot.com/2012/02/some-initial-thoughts-on-r7rs.html

======
oddthink
Odd how he dislikes both not having a way to create disjoint types and the way
provided to create disjoint types (define-record-type).

~~~
noelwelsh
Indeed, and what could be a truer reflection of the Scheme community than this
;-)

~~~
ruv
LISP and Buddha-nature... ;)

------
brianobush
Still going to stick with R5RS. do we really need to revise Latin?

~~~
zokier
My understanding from superficial observation is that they are trying to fix
the (perceived) mess that was R6RS, and thus unify the community.

~~~
csl
That would be the case. Some people were unhappy with R6RS not keeping Scheme
a minimal language anymore.

Now they're making one "small" Scheme and one "big" Scheme. That's a good
thing because they can actively decide what to put in the big version (full
numeric tower, e.g.) and what to put in the small language (e.g. a
standardized module system).

