On 4/9/07, Chris Hanson <cph at csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> <flame>
>
> Yes, but the same could be said for many of the experiments currently
> being pushed into R6RS. Speaking only for myself and some
> as-yet-unidentified historical brethren, I would be much happier with a
> less radical and more evolutionary document. Why exactly is it
> necessary to change **everything** now? Either this process works, in
> which case there will be further revisions. Or it doesn't, in which
> case it doesn't matter.
>
> The editors should be in trying to make this document a success, rather
> than in packing it with all these new things. A more conservative
> document stands a much better chance of ratification and implementation.
> That's important, because the way things are going I am very skeptical
> that R6RS will be implemented.
>
> </flame>
I agree with cph on this, but I'm not sure I'm old enough to identify myself
as a historical brother.
(Of course I think the editors are doing a great job on a very difficult task.
It is the task itself I wonder about.)
--
~jrm
Received on Tue Apr 10 2007 - 12:20:23 UTC