Michael Sperber writes:
R7RS-small is, in almost every way that matters, a step backwards from R6RS.
Jim Wise writes:
The proposed standard fails [...] to make substantive improvements in Scheme as a language. In essence, the standard fails to justify its own existence.
As a language, the proposed standard is a substantial step backward from R6RS in usability and fitness for purpose. In the precision of its definition, and in the completeness of the features it does provide, it falls short of that standard as well. (I am very aware of the R7RS small language / large language split; I am referring to the internal completeness of the features chosen for the smalllanguage in their own right, and their usefulness as a basis for the large language).
Takashi Kato writes:
R7RS has made a great step forward from R5RS however it looks a big step backwards from R6RS. The goal seemed gluing the gap between R5RS and future RnRS, and it made a lot of decided stuffs undecided again.
I think language specification should not look back that much even though R6RS seemed too progressive. I hope WG2 will decide dropped off stuff again.
See also my comment to #484 about conditional specifications.
And of course the large language will be adding back a great many R6RS procedures, especially from the library report, though not necessarily in exactly the same way.
The WG decided by unanimous consent to take no action on this ticket.
The R7RS-small language is not meant to replace R6RS. Rather, it is meant to replace R5RS (which R6RS did not do, and perhaps was not meant to do), and at the same time provide a sound basis for the R7RS-large language, which is meant to replace R6RS.
To complain in the same breath that the draft is a step backwards from R6RS and that it is internally incoherent is itself incoherent. Without a specification of what features are missing, or provided though not useful, it's impossible to take this complaint as a program for action.