> I'm against it, but I should note that Scheme is an IEEE standard, > and *that* took far less than a decade and didn't destroy anything. > So I'd say: if you're going to do a std at all, start w/ an IEEE > one. Also, it may be easier to make an ISO std from an existing > std (there's a "fast track") than to start w/ ISO. I believe what you say to be true: IEEE is easier than ISO. I am only really familiar with ISO. The fast track procedure is a possibility, but don't underestimate the editing effort required to get it into ISO Central Secretariat-approved form (though there is a useful LaTeX style which helps a bit). You would do best if you had support from one of the existing language committees, so that you could work under its wing without undergoing the tedium and politicking of JTC1/SC22. The only likely candidate language is Lisp, and that committee does not have a record of rapid achievement. > Note that the IEEE Schere standard was taken almost directly from > the "Revised Report" -- the Scheme equiv of the current Haskell > definition. I don't see why the analogous thing couldn't be done > for Haskell. This is a persuasive argument for IEEE rather than ISO standardisation. ISO have a great many editorial requirements, which would take a lot of work. IEEE appear to allow more freedom. Nick
