[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Dropping enumerations library?

[William D Clinger]

I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme
community.  I am not speaking for the R6RS editors, and
this message should not be confused with the editors'
eventual formal response.

Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
> I agree with Andre.  Having read the archives, I fully agree with Will
> Clinger's comment at:
>
>      http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2006-April/001185.html

Reading that note out of context would give someone the
impression that I was opposing the (r6rs enum) library
described in section 19 of the draft R6RS.

Not so.  I was opposing a very different proposal that
did not make its way into any public draft.  (If you want
to see exactly what I was opposing, you'll have to track
it down in the editors' email; I'm not going to bother.)

I do not object to including the (r6rs enum) library 
within the R6RS.  I also do not object to not including
the (r6rs enum) library within the R6RS.

> Also, because (r6rs enum) can be implemented fully in an R6RS-enum
> implementation, and because the presence of (r6rs enum) is not
> essential to the surface syntax of Scheme*, enumerations can be
> distributed as a portable library separate from R6RS.

This is both true and relevant.

If (r6rs enum) were dropped, the specifications of a couple
of procedures in section 15 would have to be changed.  The
nature of those changes is also relevant.

In a later message Aziz wrote:
> True, but what is the criterion for drawing the line between what to be
> included and what to be excluded?

Excellent question!  As the question goes far beyond
(r6rs enum), I will state my own personal criteria in
another thread.

Will