[R6RS] Ticket Status as of svn repository revision 1196:

[dyb at cs.indiana.edu]

> That is beside the point of Jaffer's comment.  See the response
> draft.  Do you disagree with the response?

Yes, I disagree with the repsonse, which seems to commit us to requiring
that UIDs be library names and flushing generative record types.  I also
share Will's confusion over the wording of the response.

I realize that the response I propose does not give Jaffer what he wants,
but I don't think that what he wants is a good idea.  By my reading of
Jaffer's proposal, he wants:

  * to require UIDs to be library names

  * to make the effective UID a combination of the supplied UID and
    the record name

  * for (nongenerative #f) to be an abbreviation for
    (nongenerative <enclosing-library-name>)

  * for a missing nongenerative clause to be equivalent to
    (nongenerative #f), i.e., (nongenerative <enclosing-library-name>)

I disagree with each of these suggestions.  The only one I'm only mildly
opposed to is the second.  It wouldn't bother me too much, but I don't
think it's necessary and don't like the fact that it promotes the record
name into something useful for more than just identifying the record for
purposes of printing and debugging.

Moreover, it seems your reading is different from mine, so whatever we
decide, we should spell it out in the response and not simply agree to the
formal comment or to "all but XXX" in the formal comment.  In otherwords,
the response should say what the next draft will have, not whether we
agree to the comment.

Kent