(maybe (eq? '() #f))

[will@cs.uoregon.edu]

    It doesn't seem reasonable to me that you have chosen to act
    unilaterally in the RnRS forum.  The poll is in accordance with IEEE
    rules for a standard, but definitely not in the consensus-seeking
    environment of RnRS....

Upon reflection, I agree:  I have acted unreasonably, and I
apologize to the RnRS authors for taking it upon myself to
make a substantive change without a unanimous mandate from
the authors.  I regret any bad feelings caused by this most
recent example of my high-handedness, of which I repent and
ask to be forgiven.

Rather than leave the wording of the R3.99RS as is, I would like
to go ahead and make the changes listed in my recent message but
add the following paragraph to section 3.2:

    For historical reasons some implementations regard #f and the
    empty list as the same object.  Such implementations therefore
    cannot make the empty list count as true, nor can they satisfy
    all the requirements of sections 3.4 and 6.1.

This paragraph, modelled on the rationale in section 6.1 of the
R3.99RS, effectively negates the other changes.  The changes would
therefore be a matter of editorial emphasis instead of substance.
The point would be to collect the scattered exceptions ("waffles")
occasioned by this issue into a single paragraph.  Cosmetically,
this would also minimize the apparent differences between the R4RS
and the IEEE standard.

I would welcome any opinions you may have on whether such editorial
changes are desirable or undesirable.  Please send your opinions
directly to me so they will not be seen by those that don't want
to see them.  Let me take this opportunity to promise those who
are still reading this that the macro proposal will soon give you
something more interesting to think about.

Peace, Will Clinger