[plt-scheme] one approach to the Scheme steering committee

From: Grant Rettke (grettke at acm.org)
Date: Sat Mar 7 22:12:38 EST 2009

Hi Shriram

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk at cs.brown.edu> wrote:
>> Multiple Scheme products would be great.
> Really?

I believe that the context of Matthias' post is that of the
R6RS-discuss mailing list.

One of the ideas being tossed around is that the next report would be
composed of multiple language definitions. That way each camp would be
satisfied; and implementors could move forward with compatible

> We've had "multiple Scheme products" for decades now.  And
> the evidence of greatness is...?  In contrast, many languages have
> gotten by with one or two implementations.  And it has hurt them how?

In context I am saying that it would be great because it would allow
for the community to move forward rather than being constipated by

> [Sorry, irrespective of my own beliefs about how many Scheme
> implementations is ideal, I could not allow such a blandly grandiose
> remark go unchallenged.]

I looked up both bland and grandiose but I don't understand what you
mean. What do you mean?

Posted on the users mailing list.