[R6RS] Re: Less verbose type definition form

[William D Clinger]

Marc wrote:
> "Elegance" was mentionned more than once at the Boston meeting as a
> "requirement" but it was not written down as a formal requirement because
> it is implicit in the design process.  Truly I think elegance is such a
> strong requirement in all that we do that it is a design principle.

I have no argument with you there, but you need to acknowledge
that your notion of "elegance" does not necessarily coincide
with that of other editors.

> What I don't understand about your comment is that you say we will never
> agree on the syntax so any syntax will have to do and then when I say
> syntax is very important and the syntax I propose is better (succinctness,
> readability and extensibility while having the same expressive power as
> your proposal) you seem to not want to discuss it.

I disagree.  Kent and Mike have written several detailed messages
explaining their position and responding to your criticisms.  They
don't agree with your criticisms, but they have discussed them.

> I just don't understand what the problem is.

The problem is that at least three of us (Kent, Mike, and I) appear
to prefer a syntax you dislike.  Mike and I, and possibly Kent,
believe that syntax already contains significant compromises made
at your request.  If that compromise proposal is so terribly
unsatisfactory to you, I'd suggest that we put only the procedural
interface into the R6RS, and put the competing syntactic proposals
into separate SRFIs.

Will