> that the "must" requirement is a more important one than
> maintaining absolute backwards compatibility with R5RS.

"Absolute backwards compatibility" is a red herring; I am happy with the
"should" language in the charter regarding R5.  I ask only that R6 (in its
new name WG2) not be more privileged, so that WG1 can discuss these issues
on their merits.  But I do think that maintaining /the spirit of/ R5 and
earlier Schemes is way more important than (turnabout) absolute backward
compatibility with R6.  In particular this means that there must be no hint
of a phased evaluation model in WG1.

Perhaps it will turn out that there is a coherent unphased language that
nevertheless is downward compatible with WG2.  If so, great!  But if not,
a slavish adherence to the charter as currently written will result in a
WG1 language that nobody will use.  The people who want super duper compiled
macrology will use WG2, and the people who want a traditional-flavored Scheme
will use R5.

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