[r6rs-discuss] R5RS is not a baseline
William D Clinger
will at ccs.neu.edu
Thu Feb 19 15:49:23 EST 2009
Brian Harvey's proposal was:
> I propose that R5RS be the baseline [I'd be happier to start even earlier,
> but think that agreement on R5RS will be easiest to get], and that changes
> require a 3/4 vote to approve (not to veto!), from an editoral board at
> least the size and diversity of the one listed on the first page of R5RS.
Or take the IEEE/ANSI standard as a baseline.
It sounds like some people are afraid that some of
the changes made in the R6RS wouldn't be supported
by 75%, so they'd prefer to regard the 65% who voted
to ratify the R6RS as the ultimate arbiters.
In my opinion, changes that can't gain the support of
75% probably shouldn't have been made in the first
place. I believe the good parts of the R6RS would
have little trouble gaining the support of 75%, but
that may just mean I have more respect for the R6RS
than some of those who proclaimed its perfection or
voted to ratify it.
More information about the r6rs-discuss