Aaron Hsu writes:
We have, for some inexplicable reason, chosen to follow the wording and style of R5RS rather than the better, more precise, and clearer stylistic approach of the R6RS standard. I do not understand this except that it serves as a sort of reactionary statement against R6RS, which is not good. R6RS did a lot simply in standard organization and layout that we should have maintained, as well as with language, which we did not maintain. While we have incorporated a good deal of wording from R6RS, it would have been better to have started with R6RS as a base, rather than cherry picking from it.