Re: [Scheme-reports] Reformulated numeric-tower ballot

[Andy Wingo <wingo@x>]

On Thu 01 May 2014 16:33, John Cowan <cowan@x> writes:

> A standard is a contract between implementer and user.  Too few assumptions,
> and the user suffers; too many assumptions, and the implementer suffers.
> It's a Goldilocks problem:  not too large, or too small, but just right.

This discussion is frankly ridiculous.  Where are Dybvig, Flatt, Clinger
et al?  Where is Feeley?  These are the implementors I respect most.
(Of course I appreciate Shiro and Peter's presence but they can't be
expect to carry the day in the current electorate.)  If these people are
not interested, why go on and still call it scheme?

While I'm at it, where *is* the R7RS small final edition?  Why is it not
on R7RS.org?

Without strong, quality implementations participating at the core of
this effort, R7RS will ever be the standardization of the panoply of
differences of marginal Schemes.  To the extent that things get
standardized it will be because John decided to put e.g. vector-for-each
on a ballot and enough people showed up -- or maybe the latter isn't
even necessary, as there is no quorum.  The SRFI process, blessed as
RNRS.

That this discussion of differences and requirements is happening *for
the large version* is just... I don't know.  I don't even know what to
say.  Good luck I guess but count me out.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

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