On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:21 AM, John Cowan<[email protected]> wrote: > Grant Rettke scripsit: > >> There is a lot of talk from a users perspective, but from an >> implementers perspective (other than what Joe mentioned), nothing is >> jumping out at least based on the landscape today. > > The implementers are the servants of the users, and so are the standards > committees.
Agreed. In practice though users are really subject to the whim of the implementers. > What the users want, the implementers and standards > committees should find a way to provide, if not necessarily the way the > users expected. Do you mean by compromise? > It's true that in the past Scheme has been standardized basically by > self-selected implementers. I have good reasons to believe that that > will change this time. > >> Which Schemes will lead the aforementioned pack towards R7RS >> (regardless of who are leaders by use or popularity)? > > Nobody can say that until the content of R7RS is known. Sure they can. There were plenty of implementers who said flat out that they wouldn't implement R6RS if they didn't like it, and ultimately, they held true to it, as did the implementers who said that they would implement R6RS even the didn't like it. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
