[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] Appeal for review help with R7RS draft 4
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] Appeal for review help with R7RS draft 4
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:50:09 -0400
I have done what I think is all the editing required to take R7RS-small
from draft 3 to draft 4, but there seems to be no one on the WG with
the time right now to review it, so I can't publish the draft. So I am
appealing for volunteers from this list.
Draft 4 is based on ballot 4, which is world-readable at
http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/WG1Ballot4Results . The #nnn entries are
links to the underlying tickets; crossed-out entries represent tickets
that were rejected by the WG and are therefore not in the draft.
The tickets that have not yet been implemented can be found at
Implementing them is *not* the thrust of this effort, only reviewing
the others. (Naturally, I won't scorn any patches for them that do arrive.)
I can send each volunteer any or all of these:
1) A PDF of draft 4 as it stands
2) The LaTeX files for draft 4 as they stand
3) Diffs for the LaTex files between the published draft 3 and draft 4
4) A PDF made from latexdiff output (maybe -- I've never tried to do this)
The conditions are to keep the materials private for the time being,
and to send back critique by email in a reasonably timely fashion.
This critique can either be related to the tickets or general editorial
notes (typos, bogus content, etc.) but not change requests at this stage.
Prose comments is fine, patches are better.
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan@x
There are books that are at once excellent and boring. Those that at
once leap to the mind are Thoreau's Walden, Emerson's Essays, George
Eliot's Adam Bede, and Landor's Dialogues. --Somerset Maugham
Scheme-reports mailing list