On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Alex Shinn scripsit: >> >> > My preference is to remove the entire section about R6RS. >> >> Unfortunately, the WG voted to have it there. However, I am willing >> to change my vote, and if either Arthur or Alaric will do the same, >> then we can flush it and reclaim a whole page. Given the amount of >> headache it has been, I would urge this action. >> > > R6RS is out there, though, and even though R7RS-large is really what > should be compared to R6RS, it is useful to have a concise comparison with > R7RS-small. Given that we're unlikely to make big changes at this point, I > don't see why we'd flush all that work. > Well, the change list would have been much smaller comparing to R7RS-large. If we're going to keep it, it's probably best to remove the comments and mini-rationales. They were useful for the original wiki format (in fact the intent was to flesh out more detailed rationales for all changes), but people seem to be taking them the wrong way. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
