> I propose that R5RS be the baseline I voted against R6RS. However, I recognize that there is a lot of good in the R6RS. I now use portable R6RS Scheme almost daily because for the overwhelming majority of my work, it is mor useful than portable R5RS Scheme. I more or less use R6RS Scheme as R5RS Scheme with a portable library system (and R6RS records instead of SRFI-9 records). I prefer to write in portable code, because the best Schemes for development are often not the best Schemes for production runs. Some of my projects require years of CPU time, so this is an important consideration for me. So, that's my bias.
We all have a finite amount of time to devote to Scheme standardization. Would it be better to use this time to "fix" the R6RS or to "rebuild" starting from the R5RS? My judgement is that fixing the R6RS would be quicker. Therefore, I am inclined to vote against any candidate for the steering committee who wanted to base the next Scheme standard on R5RS Scheme rather than R6RS Scheme. Regards, Alan -- Alan Watson http://www.alan-watson.org/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
