Yep, I did. I'm including my explanation below, because I think that R6RS has come under a lot of fire lately. (By the way, for those who say, "why doesn't the standard come with a small base, and then lots of libraries attached to it?", it does! <snark>Try reading it, why don't you.</snark>)
Even if you don't agree with my choice, don't forget to vote if you signed up (just one of many reminders you'll surely get until voting closes Sunday)!
I would gladly trade a report full of mistakes---not that I think this is such a report, but some do---for a library system which properly handles hygienic macros. Therefore, I am voting "Yes" on R6RS. (The exception specification is just icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned.)
Some consolation for those who do think this report is full of mistakes:
- I expect we'll be seeing lots of "(r6rs base)"-compliant implementations which leave off libraries they don't like, and
...in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.--- Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406--408 (1932) (Justice Brandeis dissenting).