R3.99RS issues (macros in R4RS)

[Mike Shaff <shaff@sesame.stanford.edu>]

ciao,

Will>The plan is for the R4RS (but not the R3.99RS) will have an appendix that
Will>describes (at least) two incompatible macro proposals and the issues that
Will>have prevented them from being resolved; this should be the only
Will>substantial difference between the R3.99RS and the R4RS.

I am in strong disagreement with the inclusion of two appendices, as the net
effect will be an unfair evaluation of the issues by the user community.
Syntactic closures without a user interface will not be 'user friendly', but I
believe addresses the issues that are important.  Extend-syntax has many nice
properties, but does NOT address the issues that are important to me.  I can
not believe that a compromise is not attainable by the macro committee.  I
implore the committee and other interested parties to resolve this divisive
issue.

To make the point totally clear I believe that R4RS should NOT be issued until
this issue is resolved with ONE decision.

 (peace chance)

	mas