[ERR5RS] Rationale and ease of use

[Lynn Winebarger]

On 9/11/07, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/07, David Rush <kumoyuki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/11/07, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For myself, internal DEFINE is a syntactic sugar I can live without,
> > although I do occasionally use it. Since we're talking in the context
> > of ERR5RS I think that keeping it as close to R5RS as possible is
> > desirable. But it might be fun to explore the idea more in the
> > Platonic Ideal context.
> >
>    It was not my intent to suggest that it be removed.  That's
> clearly a non-starter for ERR5RS.

    My motive is to help build a basis for the rationale of the
decisions of the ERR5RS.  My feeling is that identifying different
approaches gives the ERR5RS an opportunity.  It might be that an
approach is either explictly embraced or outright rejected.  For me,
it is also important to be able to say "We are explicitly not defining
this behaviour because different reasonable implementation
philosophies can lead to conflicting semantics as detailed at
<locations>."  Putting these on the wiki gives the designers the
opportunity to explain why they think a position is either acceptable
or unacceptable.
    If particular ideas are viewed as too eccentric, the wiki
presentation gives a clear opportunity for saying so and why they are
out of line.

Lynn