This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.
Source for ticket #108
cc
changetime
2012-11-29 02:34:42
component
WG1 - Core
description
A generic immutable property interface is described here:
ImmutableData.
Do we add an optional way to copy data to immutable one (and back) ?
id
108
keywords
milestone
owner
alexshinn
priority
minor
reporter
medernac
resolution
wontfix
severity
status
closed
summary
Optionally turning data to immutable one
time
2010-12-01 04:41:26
type
defect
Changes
Change at time 2012-11-29 02:34:42
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
7
raw-time
1354127682135549
ticket
108
time
2012-11-29 02:34:42
Change at time 2012-11-29 02:34:42
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
wontfix
oldvalue
raw-time
1354127682135549
ticket
108
time
2012-11-29 02:34:42
Change at time 2012-11-29 02:34:42
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
closed
oldvalue
reopened
raw-time
1354127682135549
ticket
108
time
2012-11-29 02:34:42
Change at time 2012-11-29 02:34:35
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
6
raw-time
1354127675407083
ticket
108
time
2012-11-29 02:34:35
Change at time 2012-11-29 02:34:35
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
oldvalue
fixed
raw-time
1354127675407083
ticket
108
time
2012-11-29 02:34:35
Change at time 2012-11-29 02:34:35
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
reopened
oldvalue
closed
raw-time
1354127675407083
ticket
108
time
2012-11-29 02:34:35
Change at time 2011-01-24 06:54:37
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
WG1 voted to take no action.
oldvalue
5
raw-time
1295823277000000
ticket
108
time
2011-01-24 06:54:37
Change at time 2011-01-24 06:54:37
author
cowan
field
description
newvalue
A generic immutable property interface is described here:
ImmutableData.
Do we add an optional way to copy data to immutable one (and back) ?
oldvalue
A generic immutable property interface is described here:
ImmutableData.
Do we add an optional way to copy data to immutable one (and back) ?
raw-time
1295823277000000
ticket
108
time
2011-01-24 06:54:37
Change at time 2011-01-24 06:54:37
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
fixed
oldvalue
raw-time
1295823277000000
ticket
108
time
2011-01-24 06:54:37
Change at time 2011-01-24 06:54:37
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
closed
oldvalue
new
raw-time
1295823277000000
ticket
108
time
2011-01-24 06:54:37
Change at time 2011-01-11 16:00:51
author
medernac
field
comment
newvalue
You are right and I agree with you, though the WG is a good place for debate. I am lacking good discussions about having an immutability concept orthogonal to datatype to see more clearly benefits/drawbacks of this idea. There is the SRFI-65 which is alike but it is not popular and has been withdrawn.
oldvalue
4
raw-time
1294732851000000
ticket
108
time
2011-01-11 16:00:51
Change at time 2011-01-11 06:07:59
author
arcfide
field
comment
newvalue
I agree that this has some appeal, but I do not see any justification for this in the standard since I do not see any implementations taking this approach already. It feels far too uncharted for me to be fairly comfortable about this in WG1.
oldvalue
3
raw-time
1294697279000000
ticket
108
time
2011-01-11 06:07:59
Change at time 2010-12-18 18:00:44
author
medernac
field
comment
newvalue
Replying to [comment:1 arcfide]:
> Is this something that any Schemes have right now?
Hello Aaron,
The rationale is instead to have immutable and mutable versions for each kind of data (like cons / mcons) to have orthogonal recursive copy functions to "toggle the mutability flag" (See R5RS "Storage Model" section) or any other mean implementation may choose.
A predicate for mutability checking is associated with these functions. Racket already has an 'immutable?' generic function and one could write recursive conversion functions easily with the help of immutable and mutable version of each kind of data, but IMHO it helps to view mutability as an orthogonal property and not to have 2 constructors versions for each kind of data.
oldvalue
1.2
raw-time
1292666444000000
ticket
108
time
2010-12-18 18:00:44
Change at time 2010-12-17 15:46:05
author
arcfide
field
comment
newvalue
Is this something that any Schemes have right now?
oldvalue
1
raw-time
1292571965000000
ticket
108
time
2010-12-17 15:46:05
Change at time 2010-12-17 15:46:05
author
arcfide
field
description
newvalue
A generic immutable property interface is described here:
ImmutableData.
Do we add an optional way to copy data to immutable one (and back) ?
oldvalue
A generic immutable property interface is described here:
[http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/ImmutableData]
Do we add an optional way to copy data to immutable one (and back) ?
raw-time
1292571965000000
ticket
108
time
2010-12-17 15:46:05