[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Scheme-6 should be differentiated from earlier versions

[Aubrey Jaffer]

---
This message is a formal comment which was submitted to formal-comment at r6rs.org, following the requirements described at: http://www.r6rs.org/process.html
---
	         submitter's name: Aubrey Jaffer
	submitter's email address: agj at alum.mit.edu
		    type of issue: Defect
		         priority: Major
		   R6RS component: All
	    version of the report: 5.92
one-sentence summary of the issue: Scheme-6 should be differentiated from earlier versions
    full description of the issue:

Many unsupported and weakly supported Scheme implementations, and
possibly some supported ones, will remain at R5RS and call themselves
Scheme for years to come.

If both R5RS and R6RS implementations and code are described simply as
Scheme, then the confusion caused by the incompatibility between
Scheme and Scheme-6 will reflect poorly on the language and be an
obstacle to Scheme's wider acceptance.

Because R6RS is a major, incompatible change from earlier Reports,
occurrences of the word "Scheme" in R6RS should be changed to
"Scheme-6" when the aspect being discussed is incompatible with R5RS.