On Wed 11 May 2011 20:49, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> Andy Wingo scripsit:
>
>> Diplomacy aside, I do think that it would be an error to settle on ER
>> as the blessed procedural macro transformer for WG2.
>
> What a pity you didn't join WG2.

I am ignorant and sometimes brash and am just finding out about many of
these things!  A kind remark, though.

Standards have many stakeholders, as you know, among them implementors.
If you are interested, it would probably be good for the quality of both
drafts to solicit opinions on the issues that were voted on.  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.  Who would turn down an opportunity for feedback from
Flatt or Dybvig?  Not me :)

(Of course such a mail would be necessarily quite long, but I think that
mail is much more preferable than telling people to look at a wiki.)

Just a suggestion :)

Cheers,

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/

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