Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms

[Greg Troxel <gdt@lexort.com>]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> The reason I’m hesitant is that, while I think it’s nice to be able to
> have local ‘define’ in these contexts, I’m wary of diverging from R5RS
> and R6RS.  Since it’s a one-way change (we won’t be able to revert it
> once people rely on it), I thought we’d rather be careful.

My reaction, without thinking much, and being fuzzy on a lot of things
is that part of the point of guile is that it is Scheme which to me
means RnRS conformance.   Of course it's not exactly and every other
Scheme impl is not exactly.  But mostly I think that's a bug as it leads
to incompatible programs.

For example, there are many shell scripts out there that use == in test,
because bash decided to have an extension.  This is not useful, except
perhaps to people writing in sh that think they are writing C :-) but it
does mean that these scripts become limited to bash rather than any
"POSIX sh implementation".

Does the new feature advance the goal of guile as an extension language?

Is this heading for inclusino in the next RnRS?