Forwarded by request. ----- Forwarded message from _1126 <[email protected]> -----
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:26:35 +0200 From: _1126 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: R7RS-small ratification vote Dear John, since I am not subscribed to the list, I'd like to take the way Moritz already took and ask you to please forward this vote to the list :) Thanks in advance, Christian. Full Name: Christian Lask Location: Cologne, Germany Affiliation: None relevant Contact details: [email protected] Statement of interest: I'm still quite a newbie when it comes to program in Scheme, but I quite like it so far. I've done all my personal programming in the last months in Chicken Scheme and are about to start using it at work, too. Vote: Yes Rationale: I voted yes, because I think that R7RS-small can be a rather worthy successor of R5RS. I follow Christian Kellermann here, who wrote in his rationale that "R7RS is an *improvement* over the current state of affairs. While it is a step backwards from R6RS in terms of power of the language it is a step forward for people working with different implementations." And since I am already quoting, let me quote Peter Bex, too, who says it better than I ever could, when he argues that the draft "managed to pick just those few things from R6RS which seem to be really neccessary for code sharing, and distilled it down into a more minimal specification worthy of bearing the name 'Scheme'." ----- End forwarded message ----- -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan If he has seen farther than others, it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves. --Mike Champion, describing Tim Berners-Lee (adapted) _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
