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

Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: R7RS 'eqv?' cannot be used for reliable memoization

Mark H Weaver scripsit:

> What is the purpose of allowing people to review a draft if you are
> unwilling to fix serious flaws such as this?

The primary purpose of the seventh draft is so that the
elected Steering Committee, as well as the electorate, can
determine whether it satisfies the WG1 charter requirements at
<http://www.scheme-reports.org/2009/working-group-1-charter.html> or not.
Editorial corrections, though valuable, are essentially gravy at this
point.  Substantive requests for change aren't on the agenda: eventually
we have to put a stop to the process somewhere, or we'll never ship,
and the line has been drawn here.

> Even you have admitted several times on irc that you don't like the
> current definition.

The fact that Alex doesn't like it is neither here nor there.  Alex
(and the editors generally) are the servants of the WG, and do what
it commands.  A majority of the legal votes cast (6 out of 10) chose
the current language.  _Vox populi, vox dei_.

> Do you have a deadline that prevents you from issuing another draft?

Our original deadline is long past, but I don't think that matters.

> Or have you simply decided that you don't _want_ to produce another one?

Not explicitly, but if any WG member had wanted another ballot (not
draft), we could have had one.  No one did.

John Cowan  cowan@x  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves.
        --Murray Gell-Mann

Scheme-reports mailing list