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 #522
cc
changetime
2013-07-07 03:20:44
component
WG1 - Core
description
Ray Dillinger writes:
WG1 was required to produce a standard such that "any working WG1 program is also a working WG2 program" and that forbade developing a simpler semantic model of anything that WG2 is making complex. WG1 was not to simplify anything that would remain complex in WG2's dialect, nor to unrestrict anything that would remain restricted in WG2's dialect.
In other words, WG1 was ''expressly forbidden'' to "remove restrictions that make additional features seem necessary" which is IMO a clear statement that though it has much in common with earlier dialects of Scheme, the language we're working on is not, in fact, Scheme as we have up to now understood it. This relationship with the previous Scheme philosophy repeats one of the design flaws that caused so much controversy with R6, although the effect on the standard produced has not in this case been nearly as pronounced.
id
522
keywords
milestone
owner
alexshinn
priority
major
reporter
cowan
resolution
wontfix
severity
status
closed
summary
WG1 was forbidden to remove restrictions
time
2013-05-13 17:02:15
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
2
raw-time
1373142044410382
ticket
522
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
522
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
522
time
2013-07-07 03:20:44
Change at time 2013-05-13 17:05:21
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
After several attempts, I can't understand what this complaint is about. I can only quote Charles Babbage here:
On two occasions I have been asked, — 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
I can only add that the draft ''has in fact'' removed certain restrictions that etc. etc. — as a simple example, the restriction that `load` can only affect the interaction environment.
oldvalue
1
raw-time
1368439521091992
ticket
522
time
2013-05-13 17:05:21