On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 15:46 -0400, Marc Feeley wrote:

> New drafts of the charters proposed for working groups 1 and 2 are now
> online at http://www.scheme-reports.org/ .
>
> Comments on these two draft charters are solicited.  If you want your
> comments to be seen only by the Scheme Language Steering Committee,
> send them to

I think first of all that the timelines set forth in the working group
charters are too short by at least half.  It is not reasonable to
think that both consensus and consistency may be achieved in this
timeframe, especially since WG1's charter includes a "proof of
implementability" which at this time can only be interpreted to
mean an implementation.

Secondly I suspect that the requirement that the language of WG1 must
be a subset of the language of WG2 will cause difficulties more
serious than those who drafted the charters now suspect, for reasons
I have explained on the R6RS-discuss list.  I see the desires of
those who want a "small scheme" as being qualitatively different
than what can be achieved by subsetting a larger scheme which serves
the needs outlined in the WG2 charter.  The subset language will not
under these rules be permitted to be consistent and unconstrained
enough to avoid the need for the additional things required by the
full language, thus it really will be "part of a language" instead
of "a language so consistent and unconstrained that it can remain
small."

It would not have been necessary to have more than one working
group in the first place if subsetting were a viable approach.
Rather, it would be appropriate for the working group to produce
a document specifying some constraints as "optional", as was done
in past RNRS reports. Indeed, this will be the net effect of the
current effort if the draft WG charters are ratified and executed.

At any rate, the effort will be interesting.

				Bear

_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss