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

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Per Bothner scripsit:

> 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."

Note the passage further down that begins "If formal objections remain
at this time".

> Even though there are decisions I disagree with (obviously),

Since you are an implementer, if you care to put together a list of these,
I'll be glad to post them on the wiki.  The Notes section of the draft
may be helpful in this process.  I've already done this for Alex Shinn:
see <http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/WhatShinnDoesNotLike>.

> I think y'all have have gone a great job, and I much appreciate all
> the time and effort you've put into it.  If I bring up last-minute
> issues as I notice them, I apologize for not bring them up sooner,
> and I won't be insistent about them.)

Understood, and thank you for the praise.

-- 
No,  John.  I want formats that are actually       John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
address all questions by piling on ridiculous      cowan@x
internal links in forms which are hideously
over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports