[ERR5RS] Rationale and ease of use

[David Rush]

On 9/6/07, AndrevanTonder <andre at het.brown.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> I agree with the premise of R6RS that portable programs be
> written to not depend on the unspecified details of the instantiation
> semantics.  ...
> However, I do not think this idea was ideally executed.  A better
> execution might take the form of a concise description of the
> responsibility of the programmer, instead of the current description
> on the freedom of implementations.

I realize that this is out-of-band for this thread, but I would say
that it is a general problem that has been true throughout the RnRS
series of documents. If we can correct that in ERR5RS that will be a
Good Thing (TM).

david rush
-- 
Once you label me, you negate me
    - Soren Kierkegaard