Re: a (revised) draft of R5RS

["R. Kent Dybvig" <dyb@cs.indiana.edu>]

It is a fact that Scheme requires proper treatment of tail recursion.
I and I'm sure others would prefer if we were to limit discussion on this
issue in this forum to the merits of the proposed wording for the report,
rather than on why proper treatment of tail recursion is or is not a good
idea, at least until R5RS is complete.  I agree that we should fix any
phrasing that implies generality of proper treatment of tail recursion
beyond Scheme, but I don't see any such phrasing that a word or two fix
by the authors of the passage wouldn't cure.

Kent