On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 2:29 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

If it emerges that essential compatibility with R6RS is not possible
on technical grounds, this is one thing, but forbidding R6RS
compatibility on political grounds

I didn't say they objected on political grounds; in fact, I don't know their reasons. I said that if you wanted that judgment changed, you'd have to use political means.

is en clair just stupid and
petty-minded.

Now that's a political judgement.

The only practical solution that will also yield the best for the
community is in my opinion not to modify an existing implementation to
create an R7RS-large fork, but to persuade the maintainers of such an
existing high-quality implementation to steer their implementation
towards R7RS-large compatibility.

If you want that to happen, you need to put the least burden on the implementers that is possible.

vary a lot with respect to how companies influence them.

>> In any
>> case, R7RS-large has to offer more than existing standards and (!)
>> tools.

Small offers less than almost any Scheme implementation, but many implementors support it anyway.