As you probably know, all Formal Comments on the
sixth draft of R7RS-small have been resolved by the
editors and the WG, and a seventh draft issued at
<http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/raw-attachment/wiki/WikiStart/r7rs-draft-7.pdf>.

The direct recipients of this email (which is also copied to
the WG and the public mailing lists) submitted Formal Comments
which not adopted, either in part or as a whole.  I have given
their ticket numbers, authors, titles, and a summary of their
disposition below, an excerpt from a more complete summary at
<http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/FormalCommentSummary>.

In a few cases, it was hard to draw the line between acceptance and
rejection, and I have tried to err on the side of inclusion.

I am writing to you to ask you if any of you are still dissatisfied
and wish to convert your Formal Comments to Formal Objections to be
brought to the attention of the Steering Committee.  If so, please reply
either directly to this message or by sending a Formal Objection to
scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org.  If you are content to let the matter
rest, please send a note saying so.  You can easily retrieve the full
content of your Formal Comment at <http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/ticket/nnn>,
where nnn is its number below.

Summary of Formal Comments not adopted or adopted only in part:

#360 (Smyles): Change syntax of escaped symbols from |<symbol element>*|
to #"<string element>*".  Rejected by the editors, who concluded that
there was no precedent for it, that it conflicted with the Racket lexical
syntax for byte strings, and that it was most unlikely to pass a vote.

#421 (Kelsey): #!fold-case and #!no-fold-case have no final
delimiter.  Adopted in principle after a vote by the WG, although a
different syntax was chosen (they are delimited by whitespace).

#423 (Kelsey): When does eqv? return #t for procedures?  Rejected by a
vote of the WG.

#434 (Feeley): List of named characters is incomplete.  Treated mostly
as editorial, and adopted by the editors.  The WG voted not to adopt
any specific recommended source of named characters for implementation
extensions.

#435 (Feeley): Bytevectors should be called u8vectors.  Rejected by the
editors, on the grounds that the WG had already voted and no new arguments
had been presented.  There was considerable (and widening) dispute on the
scheme-reports mailing list, but the editors' view prevailed and no vote
was taken.

#436 (Feeley): Generalization of append, map, and for-each to other
sequences.  The proposed vector-append and bytevector-append procedures
were adopted by a vote of the WG.  Neither the editors nor any WG member
filed a ballot ticket for the bytevector-map and bytevector-for-each
procedures, so they were never voted on by the WG.

#438 (Feeley): Inconsistency of sequence copying procedures.  Adopted by
a vote of the WG.  However, the suggestions to reorder the arguments of
the destructive *-copy! procedures and to to rename various procedures
were not considered.

#440 (Feeley): Write procedure is not backwards compatible.  Rejected
by a vote of the WG, which adopted three procedures write-simple
(traditional write), write (with datum labels only to break cycles),
and write-shared (datum labels to show all shared structure, the
write-with-shared-structure of SRFI-38).

#456 (Sperber): Adoption of R6RS.  Treated as editorial.  Recognizing the
delicate nature of the issue, the editors removed the language objected
to, and replaced it by new and less contentious language.  The new language
was also objected to.  The editors decided to go no further.

--
John Cowan    cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
        Sound change operates regularly to produce irregularities;
        analogy operates irregularly to produce regularities.
                --E.H. Sturtevant, ca. 1945, probably at Yale