On Apr 24, 2013, at 16:40, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:

> AAARRRRGHHHH!!!!!!!  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ARGUE AGAINST AN ASSERTION THAT
> SOMETHING IS NOT SCHEME!!!!!!!!

This is clearly true, inasmuch as whatever standard is selected as R7RS will be Scheme by definition.

That's hardly an argument against deciding whether the specific language now under consideration is worth the effort of blessing as the next version of Scheme, though, right?  If so, I don't think the observation that a language does not "feel" true to the characteristics of the language as understood today need be dismissed out of hand;  we do not dismiss those who endorse scheme for its "beauty" or "cleanliness" -- let us not, then, dismiss those who argue that these aspects are diminished by this draft.

Jim Wise
jwise@draga.com

Sent from my iPhone.
Digital signature available upon request.
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports