Report vs. standard Scheme

[Chris Haynes <chaynes@sunfish.cs.indiana.edu>]

In IEEE Standard Scheme () and #f must be distinct, but not in R4RS Scheme.
I was surprised (and pleased) by the strength of the last minute "let's get
our act together" sentiment for this change in the standard.  Do we want to
perpetuate this difference.

The other difference between report and standard Scheme that is most
noticable to me (besides the macros appendix) is that the standard dropped
the essential/inessential distinction, dumping a few of the innessential
procedures and forms and adopting the rest.  Should R5RS follow suit?

All significant departures of standard Scheme from R4RS scheme were
carefully considered.  Perhaps there are good reasons for maintaining some
of these differences, but they deserve to be considered.  

Of course I hope the Scheme reports always differs significantly from
Scheme standards by publicizing experimental features.  There may also be a
need for a less demanding informal standard (reflected as just noted in the
R4RS treatment of () and inessential features), but such Balkanization of
Scheme should be avoided unless the need is great.  It should not be merely
a reflection of less effective means for achieving concensus.