Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:24:36 -0700
   From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@gmail.com>

   We do need to be careful here, and the WG has not yet had
   time to fully review the non-call/cc-based dynamic-binding
   research pointed out by Oleg.

   Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:35 -0700
   From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@gmail.com>

   The definition of eqv? is still under debate, but if the
   end result is incompatible with the formal semantics
   we will definitely update it.

I am confused about the status of R7R draft 6.  I had assumed that it
was near completion and was only commenting on the text itself, not
on which features were included or what their semantics should be.
Indeed, Will Clinger just posted a message from the steering committee
saying:

  We plan to call for a vote on the proposed specification sometime
  after the comment period has closed. In a few weeks, we'll send
  instructions on how to sign up for that advisory vote.

On the other hand, WG1 hasn't made up its mind on how call/cc should
work or how eqv? compares procedures.  There isn't much point in trying
to get the text right when the semantics are still up for grabs.

The steering committee and WG1 need to get on the same page.

                                   -Richard Kelsey

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