On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:56:50 -0400, Joe Marshall <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Yes, and this is the problem I'm hoping to understand and hoping that I
> can help
> R7 avoid. We won't get a complete consensus on what goes in to R7, but
> I *hope* we can get all the `big names' aboard, and that if we do, it
> will be
> of benefit to the community.
I believe that the reason we didn't get consensus is because we actually
wanted it. I know, don't laugh. But really, you *don't* get the Scheme
community to agree, and that's not necessarily a bad thing for many areas.
The majority of disagreement comes from either a few well known,
underlying semantic issues, or at the per-library issue. PLT Scheme is
fundamentally different in its goals and approach to problems than is Chez
Scheme, despite them having some overlap in some areas and interfaces.
Others are the same way. It is going to be very very hard to get
*everyone* to do agree to one way of thinking. It's just anti-Scheme. We
can however, have localized consensus in specific domains, and I think
that's what we should focus on: getting consensus on specific areas; let's
avoid, for the moment, the issue of wide overarching consensus.
Maybe later, general consensus on things can be reached, but I argue for
an incremental approach to reaching this. No need to push the community
where they aren't ready to go.
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
