> Why should this principle not apply to R6RS? Or R4RS? Earlier today (at least that's when it showed up in my mailbox) someone argued that it would be wrong to pretend R6RS never happened. I agree, but I would argue that it would be just as wrong to pretend that the extremely strongly-felt opposition to R6 never happened.
I think that one plausible way not to pretend in either direction would be this: Elements of the standard that are new in R6 should be part of the consensus fallback for R7 iff they are extensions that don't break R5. Ones that do break R5 clearly do not have consensus-level support among the Scheme community, and therefore should not be part of the next fallback. As in any consensus process, people can raise arguments for changing /anything/, but they have to convince everyone in order to change the standard. I do realize that the SC has specified supermajority, but not consensus, votes for the new standard. But at least in the case of WG1, specifying a 90% vote means that the committee hopes for something very like consensus. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
