[R6RS] Tickets 80 and 129 now have "final" responses

[dyb at cs.indiana.edu]

> 80: This still needs to be decided
>
>     I propose the following response:
>
>         The set of procedures provided is not inconsistent: we have
>         call-with-string-output-port and call-with-bytes-output-port
>         because each returns a useful value (the string or bytes object);
>         for the others mentioned in the comment's first two bullet points,
>         call-with-port suffices; the simple-io is intended to be
>         compatible with R5RS and, well, simpler.
>
>         Where the procedures are mentioned is an editorial decision.
>         We appreciate your suggestions and will take them into
>         consideration.

Having heard positively from Mike and negatively from no one, I have added
the response above.

> 129: We have agreement to accept the formal comment, but still need to
>      decide on the syntax:
>
>        Option 1: (nongenerative #t) 
>          - with (nongenerative #f) or the absense of a nongenerative clause
>            implying generative
>
>        Option 2: (nongenerative)
>          - with the absense of a nongenerative clause implying generative
>
>      I propose option 2.
>
>      For consistency with Option 2, I think we also need to replace
>      (sealed #t) and (opaque #t) with (sealed) and (opaque), but Mike
>      disagrees, so I am not proposing those changes.  Someone can always
>      put forth a formal comment to this effect later.

Having heard positively from Mike and negatively from no one, I have
"finalized" the response to read that we will adopt the proposal with
the (nongenerative) syntax rather than (nongenerative #t).

Kent