On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > However, there is nothing to suggest that formal comments have any > different timing or process from formal objections. And nothing > to suggest that a formal objection should be a "charter violation > or otherwise seriously threatens the ratification of the seventh draft." > I think John is just pointing out that the formal comment period is over, and the exact process we defined for those comments no longer applies. There's no real definition of formal objection, so from the WG perspective we handle this as an informal comment. The (scheme) prefix was voted on back in the fourth ballot, winning narrowly over (r7rs). As I recall the rationales were that the large language would include library versioning support (and if not, R8RS could, retroactively fixing the problem). The versioning argument is not new so it's probably too late to revisit this, but I'll talk to the members off list. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
