On 6/8/07, Thomas Lord <lord at emf.net> wrote:
> Another way to say that:
>
> Everyone is free to publish a SRFI and everyone is free to ignore any
> given SRFI.
>
This is my first post to this ML but I'm following the discussion
since the beginning and I can't understand your reasons at all.
Note, that what you want seems to be to have a bag of proposals so
that implementors pick and choose to their own taste what to
implement. This not only seems anarchic to me but also defies the
increased portability R6RS is about to bring. As a user, R6RS seems to
me the best standard users could get, it is somehow a guarantee that
all implementations in a short-term period will implement a set of
useful functions I can use to implement portable software. SRFIs are
nice but using the for portable software is not a guarantee of
portability, it's instead a possibility of portability. Although the
existence of SRFIs is good overall, relying on the SRFIs completely
would introduce a lot of problems for the Scheme community!
> Only a particular ad hoc group is free to publish R6 and nobody in the
> Scheme community is free to ignore R6.
>
> Therefore, perhaps it is best for the community to have more SRFIs, and
> no R6.
>
You can vote no to the ratification! What more do you want? There will
always have to be some group at the top making the hard decisions. If
you don't like them, vote no but putting all the hard decisions in the
hand of a community is not wise, IMO.
> -t
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
>
--
Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk
http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm
PhD Student _at_ ECS
University of Southampton, UK
Received on Fri Jun 15 2007 - 09:44:10 UTC