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

Scheme pre-R6RS Workshop at ICFP - What is the Point?

   Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 22:44:34 -0400
   From: "Guillermo J. Rozas" <gjr@martigny.ai.mit.edu>

   I like Will's suggestion of multiple documents and decoupling progress
   from the authors group, which seems to have fractured along
   ideological lines.

I don't mind if we designate a period of time for such documents, but
I don't see it as a central activity of our committee unless there is
a plan to choose among them and incorporate them.  Mostly I think this
is already possible and always has been, and if people haven't done it
by now, it must not be very important.

I would actually propose that if we're going to diverge into the "different
flags" approach that the fairest thing to do is to designate either R6RS or
maybe R7RS as the "Final Report on Scheme" (if it's 7, then perhaps 6 is a
feature freeze and final rehearsal and 7 might only contain bug fixes).  And
then after that, anything anyone makes cannot be called "Scheme".

This would have at least these good effects: (1) locking down the name
Scheme in a way that we don't fight over. AND (2) giving people a REAL
REASON to compromise.  that is: if you don't get your feature in now,
you're never getting it in, so you need to finally choose whether it's
better having it be forever missing or perhaps if it's better to bend.
A lot of people seem to be treating this as an endurance contest, and
this is a way of making it not be that. AND (3) giving people a real
reason to go on under one flag or another later on (because they have
no choice) instead of now where it's more appealing to remain with the
pack in hopes of taking control of the "good name" of Scheme itself.