Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values" Andre van Tonder (21 May 2011 20:04 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values" John Cowan (21 May 2011 20:42 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values" Andre van Tonder (22 May 2011 21:53 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values" Alex Shinn (22 May 2011 22:50 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values" John Cowan (23 May 2011 02:55 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values" Alaric Snell-Pym (23 May 2011 11:51 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values" Eli Barzilay (23 May 2011 12:19 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values" Alaric Snell-Pym (23 May 2011 12:39 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] "unspecified values" Alaric Snell-Pym 23 May 2011 11:51 UTC

On 05/22/11 22:53, Andre van Tonder wrote:

> But if WG1-voted decisions are written in stone as you say, then it makes little
> sense for this discussion group to even continue.  What was the point then of
> making the draft public?  I will henceforth stop my "moaning"/participation
> here.  I wish you good luck.

No! Don't do that!

By all means vent frustration by shouting at each other, but don't let
that get in the way of working together to make Scheme great.

Fatalism and anger will only lead to R7RS just being another R6RS -
swinging too far to the other extreme, driven by rage and bile.

If I were more awesome, I would quote a relevant passage from the Tao Te
Ching here.

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/

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