[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Revised straw proposal for heuristic info

I was just reminding the R*RS authors of a process is already
in place and for which there is ample precedent.

> Yeah right.  Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.  And of course it wouldn't be a
> -standard- or anything.  Just something that just happens to come bound
> together with the standard, and that many implementations just happen to
> support.

For example, the additional material that MIT bound together
with the R2RS and R4RS is not a standard.  To take another
example, the material that Texas Instruments added to the R2RS
to construct the manual for PC Scheme is not a standard.

If you are objecting to this process, you're about ten years
too late.

> I -am- still a little unclear on the details of how this decision was made.
> Did we take a vote and I missed it?

No vote was taken.  The explicit non-copyright of the R2RS,
R3RS, and R4RS explicitly allowed the process to which you
now seem to be objecting.

> As someone who -isn't- an implementor, what
> influence do I have over this new process?

Your status as an implementor or non-implementor has no effect
on your influence over this old process.

My status as an implementor did not afford me any opportunity
to veto the subtitle that MIT added to the R2RS.

Kent Dybvig's status as an implementor did not afford him any
opportunity to veto the articles on macros that MIT and the
University of Oregon added to the R4RS.  Although I believe he
probably did have some influence over their omission from
Indiana University's version of the R4RS, I believe his
influence derived from his status as an author and an expert
on macro expansion.

I note also that my status as an implementor has given me no
opportunity to veto or even to review the material that various
implementations have combined with the R*RS in order to create
their manuals.  This is as it should be.

> Am I limited to sending
> easily-ignored electronic mail to RRRS-Authors?

Yes, as are implementors.  This is as it should be.