From: Bill Richter richter@fourier.math.northwestern.edu To: pierarda@iro.umontreal.ca CC: Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca In-reply-to: 20070815222526.GA4299@iro.umontreal.ca (message from Adrien Pierard on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:25:31 -0400) Subject: Re: My R6RS vote References: 200708141836.l7EIaEsN016313@fourier.math.northwestern.edu 78987D97-CDC5-46FE-B15D-F5D4F663CDA2@iro.umontreal.ca 200708151939.l7FJdblS030238@whitney.math.northwestern.edu 20070815222526.GA4299@iro.umontreal.ca

Roughly, DS is not important in CS for the Schemer,

Thanks, Adrien, and I'll take your word on this. Let's not have a Math discussion (though your category theory sounds fun!) of languages other than Scheme. The relevance of your remarks is that it's pretty odd for the Scheme standard (R5RS) to use DS to specify the language, since DS isn't important in Scheme. Clinger's mean-spirited FAQ that Rush cited shows Clinger isn't a competent pure mathematician, as Clinger failed to understand my simple results, even if he had the legalistic skill to avoid posting any errors of his own. And I'll repeat my question: what is this Scheme community which needs a standard? I'm certainly willing to believe that R6RS is a bad standard, because of the LC_v/DS indifference of the committee members, but I don't know why we (who is we?) need a standard at all.