I have done what I think is all the editing required to take R7RS-small from draft 3 to draft 4, but there seems to be no one on the WG with the time right now to review it, so I can't publish the draft. So I am appealing for volunteers from this list.
Draft 4 is based on ballot 4, which is world-readable at http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/WG1Ballot4Results . The #nnn entries are links to the underlying tickets; crossed-out entries represent tickets that were rejected by the WG and are therefore not in the draft. The tickets that have not yet been implemented can be found at http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/query?status=decided&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=owner&col=type&col=priority&col=component&report=9&order=priority . Implementing them is *not* the thrust of this effort, only reviewing the others. (Naturally, I won't scorn any patches for them that do arrive.) I can send each volunteer any or all of these: 1) A PDF of draft 4 as it stands 2) The LaTeX files for draft 4 as they stand 3) Diffs for the LaTex files between the published draft 3 and draft 4 4) A PDF made from latexdiff output (maybe -- I've never tried to do this) The conditions are to keep the materials private for the time being, and to send back critique by email in a reasonably timely fashion. This critique can either be related to the tickets or general editorial notes (typos, bogus content, etc.) but not change requests at this stage. Prose comments is fine, patches are better. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] There are books that are at once excellent and boring. Those that at once leap to the mind are Thoreau's Walden, Emerson's Essays, George Eliot's Adam Bede, and Landor's Dialogues. --Somerset Maugham _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
