Thomas Lord scripsit:
> Another fact on the ground is that quite a few people are at least
> skeptical of the R6RS draft. Not a few simply don't like it.
>
> So, I would venture to suggest that ratification at this time (or in the
> near future) would be a mistake.
If you think that this draft should not become R6RS, then register
to vote and vote no, publicly giving your reasons. Don't attempt to
end-run the process in this particularly unsubtle fashion. "I think we
shouldn't vote because (a) a lot of other people will vote no, and/or
(b) ratification would be tantamount to failure" is not an appropriate
response to a call for ratification.
In the end, it's whether people implement R6RS that counts.
Some will, some won't.
> b) please, editors, dot your i's and cross your t's and publish
> as a SRFI (Will Clinger, please come back if this is to happen.)
Mr. Clinger is already on record as saying he'd rather spend his time
implementing R6RS.
--
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
thou hast given away: cowan at ccil.org
That thou wast born with.
Received on Thu Jun 07 2007 - 22:09:35 UTC