It's rather hard to complain about a position statement. It is their position. I do that they succinctly stated the problem that we all went through during the R6RS process - there are basically two camps with divergent goals in terms of Scheme as a 'programming' language. The ones favoring the 'small' language concept have an advantage - there is less to argue about in a smaller language definition (and that language has been relatively stable). The ones favoring a 'large' language [and I am definitely in that camp] are at a disadvantage in that there are several Scheme implementations (and there adherents) that solved the same problems in often (or even usually) incompatible ways. The differing majorities required for ratification of the two 'languages' seems like a good methodology to approach. I am hoping R7RS gets the 'large' language back into a common fold and allow us to start writing truly portable Scheme applications. I wish them well and would like to support the process in any way that helps. Doug <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Eduardo Bellani <<a href="mailto:ebellani@gmail.com">ebellani@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <a href="http://scheme-reports.org/2009/position-statement.html" target="_blank">http://scheme-reports.org/2009/position-statement.html</a> Any comments? -- Eduardo Bellani <a href="http://www.cnxs.com.br" target="_blank">www.cnxs.com.br</a> Someone once called me "just a dreamer" That offended me, the "just" part. Being a dreamer is hard work. It really gets hard when you start believing in your dreams. --Doug Engelbart _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: <a href="http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme" target="_blank">http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme</a> </blockquote></div>