Thomas Lord scripsit:
> R6 matters, economically, because implementations are often
> judged to be more or less valuable depending on their RnRS
> conformance. There are other economic reasons it matters, too.
> For example, the value of listing "Scheme" on your resume
> is, in part, a function of the quality of RnRS. So, there is economic
> rivalry over the contents of R6.
Given the history of Scheme over the last few decades, I can only
interpret this as the most bitter sarcasm: yet you seem to mean it.
> Yet, control over the content of R6 is wholly owned (de facto)
> by past editors and their "heirs". So, even though there is
> economic rivalry over the contents of the document, the contents
> are, at the end of the day, decided by the fiat of a small group.
Every word of this is true, and it was true of all other Scheme standards
as well. Yet the overall degree of R5RS compliance is tolerably good.
> Everyone is free to publish a SRFI and everyone is free to ignore any
> given SRFI.
True and true respectively.
> Only a particular ad hoc group is free to publish R6 and nobody in the
> Scheme community is free to ignore R6.
True and false respectively. As I said, some will implement R6, some
will not. Some will wish to use R6 implementations, some will not.
If newer implementations come into existence, as history suggests they
will, they may do R6 or be daunted by it and stick with R5. We just
don't know.
> It seems fairly clear that if R6 is ratified, even if a majority have
> voted "yes", it will be over the strong objections of at least several
> Schemers.
That is the nature of majority votes.
> That group will no longer be able to legitimately call their
> implementations "Scheme," etc.
Not so. They will merely not be able to claim conformance to R6RS.
Chicken, the Scheme I use, can't even claim conformance to R4RS -- quite.
Nevertheless, many people find it useful.
> It also seems clear that the R6 vote is biased in favor of "yes". For
> example, a "no" vote requires some sort of explanation be given, while a
> "yes" vote does not.
I would be okay with changing this. Rationales for yes votes, though
unusual in standards processes, would serve as good marketing fodder
for R6RS if it is ratified.
> How about this compromise:
>
> [...] The draft is *not* ratified, regardless of the outcome. [...]
What on Earth would we be voting for, then? The exercise would be
pointless. No, this is a compromise like the adult-imposed compromise
between kid A who wants to share a pie equally, and kid B who wants it
all for himself: kid A gets 25%, kid B gets 75%.
--
John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Does anybody want any flotsam? / I've gotsam.
Does anybody want any jetsam? / I can getsam.
--Ogden Nash, No Doctors Today, Thank You
Received on Fri Jun 08 2007 - 08:35:19 UTC