[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

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.


Scheme-reports mailing list