Some people think R6RS is an obvious mistake.<br><br>If there must be an R6RS, let&#39;s at least follow it.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:04 PM, William D Clinger &lt;<a target="_top" href="mailto:xxxxxx@ccs.neu.edu">xxxxxx@ccs.neu.edu</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">David Van Horn wrote:<br>
&gt; On the other hand, nobody has made an argument for why<br>
&gt; strict conformance to R6RS is compelling.<br>
<br>
Indeed, all of us who have actually implemented the R6RS,<br>
and most of those who claim to intend to implement the<br>
R6RS, have said we will not implement obvious mistakes<br>
in the R6RS.<br>
<br>
The R6RS prohibition of numerical components in library<br>
names looks like an obvious mistake to me.<br>
<br>
If the R6RS community insists upon pedantic conformance,<br>
then we should adopt the suggestion made by Olin Shivers<br>
(personal communication): use Roman numerals.<br>
<br>
Will<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>