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 #486

cc

changetime

2013-07-07 03:20:44

component

WG1 - Core

description

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.

id

keywords

milestone

owner

alexshinn

priority

major

reporter

cowan

resolution

wontfix

severity

status

closed

summary

The draft is a step backwards from R6RS

time

2013-05-12 22:40:57

type

defect

Changes

Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

The WG decided by unanimous consent to take no action on this ticket.

oldvalue

raw-time

1373142044410382

ticket

time

2013-07-07 03:20:44

Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44

author

cowan

field

resolution

newvalue

wontfix

oldvalue

raw-time

1373142044410382

ticket

time

2013-07-07 03:20:44

Change at time 2013-07-07 03:20:44

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

closed

oldvalue

new

raw-time

1373142044410382

ticket

time

2013-07-07 03:20:44

Change at time 2013-05-13 17:32:46

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

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.

oldvalue

raw-time

1368441166857471

ticket

time

2013-05-13 17:32:46

Change at time 2013-05-13 00:47:30

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

See also my comment to #484 about conditional specifications.

oldvalue

raw-time

1368380850859029

ticket

time

2013-05-13 00:47:30

Change at time 2013-05-13 00:40:11

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

raw-time

1368380411507761

ticket

time

2013-05-13 00:40:11

Change at time 2013-05-13 00:40:11

author

cowan

field

description

newvalue

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.

oldvalue

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).

raw-time

1368380411507761

ticket

time

2013-05-13 00:40:11

Change at time 2013-05-12 22:44:05

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

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.

oldvalue

raw-time

1368373445019736

ticket

time

2013-05-12 22:44:05