On 05/14/2014 01:37 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Anyway more to the point, I don't care enough to overcome my gripes with
> the process.  I don't think that the R7RS process is good for language
> design or specification.

I'm reasonably content with how R7RS-small turned out.  It's a good size,
and a sane/coherent updating of R5RS and (a trimming-down of) R6RS, though
of course we can quibble about various issues.

I'm more nervous about R7RS-large.  I'm OK with the concept of a larger language,
but it's hard to grow a larger language "by committee".  There is something to
be said for either a "benevolent dictator" or a small committee of experts.
Voting on features by the community at large (i.e. anyone who cares to vote)
does not seem the way to design R7RS-large.  I think it's fine to do a poll
to get a sense of the community, but it should never be deciding.

I don't know what the solution is.  It is possible that R7RS-large is too
ambitious, at least for the Scheme community.  Perhaps we should aim for a
more modest r7.1rs with a few optional additions.  Perhaps every other year
we could have a new 7.x point release with some modules we can take more
time to get consensus for.  Instead focusing on features perhaps it is
more important to find a standards language and framework for optional
features and modules.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

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