RE: (#F v. ()) v. Standardization

["Michael R. Blair" <ziggy@hx.lcs.mit.edu>]

>>From: Carsten Bormann <cabo%TUB.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
>>
>>As a prospective user of Scheme, I'm feeling extremely uncomfortable
>>with a standards committee that uses its own indecisiveness as an
>>excuse for forcing extensive hidden costs on its customers.

Perhaps this is an indication that it is inadvisable to attempt to
over-standardize a language...that is, while there are still
experimentors actively experimenting with the language.  I see two
ways to resolve this. Stop attempting to standardize experiment-
relevant language features, or stop doing experiments using the
language.  As a hacker rather than a bureaucrat, my sentiments lay
with the former option.

Why can't the standards committee just leave the issue fuzzy while the
R^NRS mailing list settles on a well-reasoned solution?  Certainly,
such a trivial matter cannot keep reasonable people awake at night?
And certainly there are other things on your agenda besides this
``small'' issue?
						~Ziggy

P.S. There, is that equally as inflamatory as the comment which
     inspired a reply? Or should I add something like ``I used to
     say that prospective Scheme users wanted a language that does the
     right thing, but if they would rather we standardize haphazardly,
     then I will have to stop saying that.''