Re: [Scheme-reports] formal comment: Using "scheme" for standard library is problematic

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Per Bothner <per@x> 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
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports