On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Brian Harvey <[email protected]> wrote: > 2. I'm not convinced that implementors should have more say than anyone > else. IIRC, that's how we got multiple return values. If we give extra > votes to anyone, it should be mathematicians. (I'm not one, so I don't > get any extra votes under that proposal.)
The votes shouldn't be weighted; they should be segregated to different specifications. Take two groups: One big group is users that care about records, a module system, and Unicode in addition to R5RS. They are not language designers they are users. Another big group cares about research (theory, implementation, and so on?); language design, these are the experts. Should there be one language for both? I was happy to have a module system in R6RS. I voted for it. Am I to be expected to vouch for the concerns of the latter group? No, not fairly at least. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
