[r6rs-discuss] R5RS is not a baseline
William D Clinger
will at ccs.neu.edu
Thu Feb 19 20:54:03 EST 2009
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> With all due respect, I suspect you know perfectly fine
> that a step back to R5RS would be a true set-back. It is
> NOT equivalent to fixing a flawed but decent step forward.
Lest someone be misled by your statement: No one in
this thread has suggested we step back to the R5RS
while ignoring subsequent developments.
The question is how to proceed. Should we take the
R6RS as our base document, for example, and argue
over what to remove? Or should we take a smaller
document as our base, and decide which parts of the
R6RS should be added?
One of those approaches could be characterized as
reactionary and the other as conservative, but I'm
not sure which would be which.
The more important question, in my opinion, is what
kind of process will work for the longer term, after
the R5RS and R6RS both become ancient history.
More information about the r6rs-discuss