Full name: William D Clinger

Statement of interest: not required

Vote: yes

Rationale (optional): In my opinion, the ninth draft meets the
requirements of the WG1 charter.  Furthermore, I believe WG1
has done its job well under difficult circumstances.

All previous reports in this series have been imperfect, but
reasonable people disagree concerning the nature and details
of those imperfections.  On some of those issues, I have been
on a side that prevailed.  On other issues, I have advocated
minority positions that did not prevail.  I would not expect
anybody to agree with every detail of the draft R7RS, just as
I don't expect anyone to agree with every detail of previous
reports.

Taken as a whole, I believe the draft R7RS improves upon the
corresponding portions of previous reports, and has laid a
practical foundation for the work of WG2.  Most shortcomings
of the draft R7RS lie within areas to be addressed by WG2.
I am confident that WG2, building upon the R7RS, will be able
to give us specifications for a language that's at least as
useful as R6RS Scheme and more widely accepted, while repairing
or avoiding most of the mistakes that have became apparent to
users and implementors of R6RS Scheme.

Users and implementors of R6RS Scheme have much to offer WG2,
and I hope even more of them will participate in that effort
as we move forward.

Will

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