Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!gatech!bloom-beacon!GARLIC.STANFORD.EDU!mkatz From: mkatz@GARLIC.STANFORD.EDU (Morris Katz) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re^2: Scheme standard approved Message-ID: <9012131740.AA24896@garlic.Stanford.EDU> Date: 13 Dec 90 17:40:33 GMT Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background) Organization: The Internet Lines: 26 Date: 11 Dec 90 22:49:40 GMT From: Ken Dickey [I know I am going to get flamed for this as I tend to piss people off in email. Apologies in advance. One of these years I will learn more self control...] ... There was a long discussion among the Scheme authors as to whether Scheme should be standardized. I am not going to attempt to recontruct that discussion here. Needless to say, an agreement was reached that a standard was better than no standard and that the IEEE process gave the optimal result. I beg to differ. No agreement was ever reached. A significant fraction of the Scheme community decided that a standard was desirable and went off and made one through the IEEE. There remain many members of the community who believe that this was and is a bad idea. These people have generally stated their views and then chosen not to subvert the standardization process. -------------------- Morry Katz katz@cs.stanford.edu --------------------