ncm wrote: It sounds like the R6RS people have done something astonishingly sensible and mature, especially considering their constituency. My prediction is that the people who want to write useful programs in Scheme will embrace R6RS joyfully, and the rest will continue doing whatever the hell they've been doing. That seems like real progress.
...which I more or less agree with, and which prompted me to reread something wingo had said (thus provoking the above response of ncm) that I disagreed with: namely, that the upshot is that R6RS is a kind of “static scheme” that doesn't support a dynamic style of programming. I disagree: while R5RS scheme48's module semantics is not perfectly compatible with R6RS, it essentially is, and it supports a highly dynamic style of programming.