[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: R7RS 'eqv?' cannot be used for reliable memoization

Mark H Weaver scripsit:

> I would not hold this against you if not for your utter unwillingness
> to listen to reason.   [...]  Clearly, I will have to appeal to others
> with more authority than you, because you are impervious to reason.

With respect, I suggest that you are overreacting.  What is more, you
talk as if Alex was a bureaucrat or a judge, but he's the Speaker of a
deliberative assembly operating on democratic principles.  Your range
of options is roughly as follows:

1) You can persuade a WG member to file an appeal from Alex's decision
not to reopen this issue.  If a majority of the legal votes cast are
in favor of overriding Alex's decision, the WG will have to reconsider
the matter.  Of course, that won't help if the WG then votes the same
way that it did before.

2) You can appeal to the Steering Committee to appoint a new chair who
will put the matter to a vote yet again.  Again, that doesn't affect
what the WG does.

3) You can ask the SC to reject the draft on the grounds that it does
not meet the charter requirements.

4) You can lobby the electorate to get them to vote against the draft
on the same grounds.

5) You can try to convince Scheme implementers not to implement this
feature, or even not to implement R7RS-small altogether.

6) You can try to convince the Scheme community not to use implementations
that implement R7RS-small.

7) You can strive for world domination so that you can command everyone
to avoid R7RS-small.

You can judge for yourself which, if any, of these actions will have
sufficient probability of success to be worth the efforts they will
entail on your part.

And now I'm done with this conversation.

John Cowan            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan     cowan@x
Uneasy lies the head that wears the Editor's hat! --Eddie Foirbeis Climo

Scheme-reports mailing list