On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> wrote:
>
>> [...]  All I'm concerned with is making the best report possible,
>> and that requires actually thinking out all the alternatives and
>> implications of every decision.
>
> But you're not the first person, and you're not the first committee to
> do so.
>
> [Yes, the above is pure flamebait.  Usually I wouldn't have posted it,
> but seeing an official dismissal of prior work as argument from
> authority is nonsensical when that prior work is the prior standard
> effort.  A language with a series of standards where each dismisses
> prior standards as "argument from authority" is a language that
> deserves to die.]

I'm sorry you feel this way - I very much am _not_ dismissing
R6RS.  I was very disappointed that none of the R6RS editors
volunteered for the R7RS working groups, I fought for the R6RS
options in the ballot wherever they made sense, and am hoping
the next revision of the draft can resolve some of the gratuitous
incompatibilities with R6RS that were introduced.

I'm also not assuming by default that every decision R6RS
made was correct.  I honestly want to rationally discuss all of
the options, and would gladly hear any reasoned debate you can
give on the topic.

If you're going to attack me personally or make (in this case
incorrect) assumptions about my motivations I have no further
response.

--
Alex

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