[r6rs-discuss] R5RS is not a baseline
grettke at acm.org
Thu Feb 19 19:10:22 EST 2009
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM, William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> 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.
What makes it sound that way?
> 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.
If you have Unicode, libraries, and records in R7RS more than 75% of
the community will vote for it easily.
More information about the r6rs-discuss