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

Re: [Scheme-reports] [wg2] in support of single-arity procedural syntax transformers

On 05/14/11 10:36, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Sat 14 May 2011 07:08, John Cowan <cowan@x> writes:
>>> A simple email to the maintainers of the dozen or two Scheme systems
>>> that you normally test on, with a brief summary of the questions,
>>> options, and draft outcomes might get thoughts, feedback, and perhaps
>>> more buy-in from the implementors whose names I don't often see on
>>> this or other Scheme '11 lists.
>> Sounds like way too much work for yours truly, not to mention too much
>> work to reply.  I'll stick with people who want to be members, or who
>> spontaneously send critiques to this list.  I'm all in favor of both of
>> those groups.
> I'll consider your suggestion, but I still think that neglecting
> implementors is the wrong thing, unless the goal is to get feedback only
> once the standard is out.

I think it's important that the feedback of implementors on the drafts
is obtained and their input fed into the next draft, as they can point
out implementation issues. I think there's currently better
representation from users than implementers in the WGs, which may lead
to a Scheme that's great for users except that that nobody implements it
unless we're careful!

However, that can either be done by implementers voting directly, or
them just airing their opinions here and convincing the voters to vote
for them through their rapier-like wit alone.

I, for one, want to make sure that WG1 is practical to implement
efficiently, even though I don't plan on implementing it myself any time
soon, so I'll listen to any WG1 comments and do my best, for sure.

> Regards,
> Andy


Alaric Snell-Pym

Scheme-reports mailing list