Ray Blaak wrote:
> I applaud this effort to simplify things. However, a
> reference document should try and avoid the hints of
> past fights, tense emotions, flamebait, etc.
>
> In particular, this:
>
>     Two days later, Dybvig proposed a "compromise" along
> those lines [11] that incorporated several artificial
> restrictions, apparently because Dybvig feared his
> compiler would be unable to generate efficient code for
> the general case. [12]
>
> is better as:
>
>     Two days later, Dybvig proposed a "compromise" along
> those lines [11] that incorporated several artificial
> restrictions, due to efficiency concerns for the general
> case. [12]
>
> And this:
>
>     Meanwhile, gratuitous design errors impede
> interoperation between procedural and syntactic layers,
> and several bogus claims about the inefficiency of
> higher order procedures were inserted into the very last
> public draft and were then ratified as part of the R6RS.
> [17]
>
> is better as:
>
>     Meanwhile, design errors impede interoperation
> between procedural and syntactic layers, and several
> invalid claims about the inefficiency of higher order
> procedures were inserted into the very last public draft
> and were then ratified as part of the R6RS. [17]

I accept this friendly amendment.

At least one revision of SRFI 99 would have been
required anyway, just to reflect the outcome of SRFI 97.
Your suggested changes will go into the first revision.

Thanks.

Will