[racket] R7RS and Racket in the (far) future

Pardon--on second thought, it would make more sense to quote this message in
the thread:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045444.html
in which Neil Van Dyke writes:
   "Just so you know, the Scheme universe is a bit different from that other
    languages, and I'd say that R6RS does not mean the same thing as a
    standard in some popular languages.  R6RS doesn't represent the essence
    of the language, best practices, nor consensus.  R6RS diverged from the
    tradition of earlier RnRS -- which were indeed very minimal de facto
    standards -- and had a very mixed reception.  Scheme dialect
    implementors will still try to support R6RS as a checklist item, or to
    get some library support they don't want to implement themselves, but
    R6RS is not revered doctrine like language standards tend to be.

Michael Wilber <mwilber at uccs.edu> writes:
> (disclaimer: i'm just a user; what i say doesn't reflect the rest of the
> community)
>
> "Racket" is a programming language lab. Both RxRS, and the rest of the
> "separate Racket language" that you allude to, are built on top of it,
> not the other way around.
>
> What would be the advantage of being built on top of R6RS? What you're
> proposing seems like just a semantic change to me. If it's because
> you're uncomfortable about Racket "messing with the standard", I really
> recommend that you take a look at this thread from last year and the
> related messages:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045448.html
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045448.html
>
> As Neil Van Dyke wrote,
>    "When industry people come from other languages to look at Racket,
>     they've already placed Racket in their conceptual framework, where
>     "standard" is heavily loaded.  So, when these people read in Wikipedia
>     and memetic descendants of Wikipedia that R6RS is the "standard", even
>     though I think R6RS should be shot in the gut and left in a ditch to die
>     painfully, people naturally assume that R6RS is the obvious way to go.
>     "Use non-standard?!  Get back from me, you satan!"
>
>     So they spend the weekend trying to do something in R6RS, stumbling over
>     little headaches doing that in Racket, ask questions, and are suspicious
>     when Racket people try to tell them to just do things in a non-R6RS way
>     that sounds like sneaky "proprietary non-standard extensions lock-in
>     bad-engineering" salesmanship.  In a day or two, they've lost interest
>     or written off "Scheme", and they move on to the next interesting thing
>     to look at."
>
>
>
>
>
> Da Gamer <game_beta2003 at yahoo.com> writes:
>> I was wondering if Racket at any point in the future will be libraries built from or on top of R7RS small and big proper (or any future standard RxRS really).  As opposed to being its own language.
>> ____________________
>>   Racket Users list:
>>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users