On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Aaron W. Hsu<[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
By that logic, then, nothing really needs to change does it? The only people who will suffer are the WG2 bunch. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
