On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 00:59 -0500, Andrew Pochinsky wrote: > On Feb 24, 2009, at 9:37 PM, Thomas Lord wrote: > > > Bust it up. We don't need a "language standard". > > That's OK. If you don't need a standard, I do not see why other people > having interest in the R*RS process bothers you so much. > --andrew
I'm sorry but I do not think you read what I wrote with much care for I did not say there was anything bad about having an interest in an R*RS process but rather I remarked on attributes of a potential R*RS process that I think should be a goal. Interestingly, one rationale that I gave for my position was that the alternative is to polarize the community around the question of whom to exclude. And I note your response in light of that issue. -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
