[r6rs-discuss] meta r6rs

[John Cowan]

Thomas Lord scripsit:

> Another fact on the ground is that quite a few people are at least 
> skeptical of the R6RS draft.   Not a few simply don't like it.
> 
> So, I would venture to suggest that ratification at this time (or in the 
> near future) would be a mistake.

If you think that this draft should not become R6RS, then register
to vote and vote no, publicly giving your reasons.  Don't attempt to
end-run the process in this particularly unsubtle fashion.  "I think we
shouldn't vote because (a) a lot of other people will vote no, and/or
(b) ratification would be tantamount to failure" is not an appropriate
response to a call for ratification.

In the end, it's whether people implement R6RS that counts.
Some will, some won't.

>       b) please, editors, dot your i's and cross your t's and publish
>           as a SRFI  (Will Clinger, please come back if this is to happen.)

Mr. Clinger is already on record as saying he'd rather spend his time
implementing R6RS.

-- 
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy?      John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
             thou hast given away:      cowan at ccil.org
      That thou wast born with.