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 #40
cc
arcfide@sacrideo.us
changetime
2010-10-18 02:26:04
component
WG1 - Core
description
Given equal technical merit and compatible extensibility for WG2, should WG1 prefer SRFIs or standardized behaviors from R6RS when faced with the choice. For example, a version of syntax-violation vs. syntax-error.
id
40
keywords
milestone
owner
alexshinn
priority
major
reporter
arcfide
resolution
fixed
severity
status
closed
summary
SRFI vs. R6RS precedence
time
2010-03-02 12:26:27
type
task
Changes
Change at time 2010-10-18 02:26:04
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
The WG voted to prefer SRFIs.
oldvalue
2
raw-time
1287343564000000
ticket
40
time
2010-10-18 02:26:04
Change at time 2010-10-18 02:26:04
author
cowan
field
milestone
newvalue
oldvalue
raw-time
1287343564000000
ticket
40
time
2010-10-18 02:26:04
Change at time 2010-10-18 02:26:04
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
fixed
oldvalue
raw-time
1287343564000000
ticket
40
time
2010-10-18 02:26:04
Change at time 2010-10-18 02:26:04
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
closed
oldvalue
new
raw-time
1287343564000000
ticket
40
time
2010-10-18 02:26:04
Change at time 2010-03-02 12:39:05
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
I believe that we should in general favor the SRFIs. There are relatively few R6RS implementations (about six, depending on how you count), whereas there are many implementations of SRFIs (the median SRFI is implemented in seven Schemes). Certainly I'd prefer to standardize a highly popular SRFI such as SRFI 9 (25 Schemes) or SRFI 6 (24 Schemes) to the incompatible R6RS versions of syntactic records and string ports.
oldvalue
1
raw-time
1267504745000000
ticket
40
time
2010-03-02 12:39:05