Full name: William D Clinger Statement of interest: not required
Vote: yes Rationale (optional): In my opinion, the ninth draft meets the requirements of the WG1 charter. Furthermore, I believe WG1 has done its job well under difficult circumstances. All previous reports in this series have been imperfect, but reasonable people disagree concerning the nature and details of those imperfections. On some of those issues, I have been on a side that prevailed. On other issues, I have advocated minority positions that did not prevail. I would not expect anybody to agree with every detail of the draft R7RS, just as I don't expect anyone to agree with every detail of previous reports. Taken as a whole, I believe the draft R7RS improves upon the corresponding portions of previous reports, and has laid a practical foundation for the work of WG2. Most shortcomings of the draft R7RS lie within areas to be addressed by WG2. I am confident that WG2, building upon the R7RS, will be able to give us specifications for a language that's at least as useful as R6RS Scheme and more widely accepted, while repairing or avoiding most of the mistakes that have became apparent to users and implementors of R6RS Scheme. Users and implementors of R6RS Scheme have much to offer WG2, and I hope even more of them will participate in that effort as we move forward. Will _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
