[r6rs-discuss] JAR statement

[Grant Rettke]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Brian Harvey <bh at eecs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> 2.  I'm not convinced that implementors should have more say than anyone
> else.  IIRC, that's how we got multiple return values.  If we give extra
> votes to anyone, it should be mathematicians.  (I'm not one, so I don't
> get any extra votes under that proposal.)

The votes shouldn't be weighted; they should be segregated to
different specifications.

Take two groups:

One big group is users that care about records, a module system, and
Unicode in addition to R5RS. They are not language designers they are
users.

Another big group cares about research (theory, implementation, and so
on?); language design, these are the experts.

Should there be one language for both?

I was happy to have a module system in R6RS. I voted for it. Am I to
be expected to vouch for the concerns of the latter group?

No, not fairly at least.