On 4/9/07, Chris Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <flame> > > Yes, but the same could be said for many of the experiments currently > being pushed into R6RS. Speaking only for myself and some > as-yet-unidentified historical brethren, I would be much happier with a > less radical and more evolutionary document. Why exactly is it > necessary to change **everything** now? Either this process works, in > which case there will be further revisions. Or it doesn't, in which > case it doesn't matter. > > The editors should be in trying to make this document a success, rather > than in packing it with all these new things. A more conservative > document stands a much better chance of ratification and implementation. > That's important, because the way things are going I am very skeptical > that R6RS will be implemented. > > </flame>
I agree with cph on this, but I'm not sure I'm old enough to identify myself as a historical brother. (Of course I think the editors are doing a great job on a very difficult task. It is the task itself I wonder about.) -- ~jrm _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
