Content deleted Content added
→"Review of language syntax" is not about syntax: new section |
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) →"Review of language syntax" is not about syntax: Review of standard forms and procedures" ? Also discussion of R6RS |
||
Line 88:
"Review of language syntax" section lists standard forms and procedures, not the lexical or syntactic structure of the textual form. So it seems to be a misnomer. Can anyone think of a better title, so it would match the content of that section? [[User:MagV|MagV]] ([[User talk:MagV|talk]]) 12:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
: Yes, there frankly isn't a lot of "syntax" in Lisp! Perhaps "Review of standard forms and procedures" would be better. I might also become convinced that the entire section could be removed or rewritten--I think I need to spend some time examining the structure of articles on similar subjects such as [[Common Lisp]].
: There is also the problem that this article is heavily slanted towards the still-dominant R5RS standard, and this may well change over time. For now I'm happy to continue describing R5RS and noting R6RS differences (which we don't really do a very good job of yet). If R6RS implementations, and uses of R6RS, become more popular, that will have to change. In some ways R6RS defines such a different kind of language that it may merit an entire separate article, which may or may not in time become the default article for "Scheme (programming language)". R6RS aims to be far more than the "minimalist" language described here. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 13:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
| |||