[r6rs-discuss] meta r6rs

From: Thomas Lord <lord>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:42:19 -0700

Robby Findler wrote:
> Or, if the ratification fails, will you change your tone and not even
> pretend that you think the editors have contributed something of
> value?


I am not pretending.

The community-wide conversation alone has been a huge
contribution.

While I don't think that the module system is the final word
in module systems, I do look forward to using it, especially
for subsystems that I really want to be compiled.

While I have issues with the Unicode support, even the
imperfect adoption of the proposal by some implementations
has a decent chance of bootstrapping the development of
long-term workable SRFIs and packages of "i18nized"
code.

I haven't really examined the work on records or
homogeneous arrays but, having skimmed the conversation,
I believe they are probably fine and useful.

I have some trouble with the way ports are treated but
I'm certain that future work will benefit from the proposed
interface being provided.

And so on.

I would simply rather see the set of new features
contemplated for Scheme offered to the community
as a request rather than an assertion of the authority
to define. If these new efforts are simply requests,
I'm sure many will comply and for good reason, and
there will be room to make things better still with
further requests. If, on the other hand, these new efforts
become the topic around which exclusions are formed
and defects are defined, then I don't at all see what the
community has to gain.

Yes, sir, I'm trying to kill the process as it stands. But
no, I'm quite direct about it, not running an end-around
and not trying to be sneaky or needlessly subtle. It's a
full frontal assault on the process, not the product, and you
insult me when you characterize it as anything less or
more.


-t
Received on Fri Jun 08 2007 - 16:42:19 UTC