Notes about results:

• you may list as many of the options as you want in order of preference
• you are encouraged to list all options
• options are comma-delimited (ignoring space) and case-insensitive
• you may write in your own option if you announce it to the list first
• everything but the preferences line is free-form, and may be used for a rationale
• wg2 means "pass this issue to WG2"
• undecided means I want to discuss this issue further
• abstain by leaving the preferences blank

WG1 Ballot Items To Finalize By Oct. 31

WG1 - Modules

#2 Module System

As per the charter, we need a module system proposal which allows sharing of code between implementations.

This is one issue where we can't default to the R5RS, since it has no module system. If we can't come to consensus, we will have to take the R6RS module system as-is.

Note the r6rs-- option is just the R6RS module system without versioning or phasing.

• Proposals:
  • ganz: ModulesGanz
  • hsu: ModulesAndPackagesArcfide
  • shinn: ModulesShinn
• Options: ganz, hsu, shinn, r6rs, r6rs--, undecided
• Preferences:

WG1 - Core

#57 Simple randomness

Student programs often want a small amount of randomness, not necessarily of very high quality. Shall we provide a simple interface to a random variables in WG1 Scheme?

• Proposals:
  • cowan: RandomCowan
• Options: cowan/core, cowan/module, srfi-27/core, srfi-27/module, no, wg2, undecided
• Preferences:

WG1 - Exceptions

#18 Exception System

R6RS provided a detailed exception system with support for raising and catching exceptions, using a hierarchy of exception types.

Do we use this, or parts of it, or a new exception system?

• Proposals:
  • cowan: ExceptionHandlingCowan
• Options: cowan/core, cowan/module, r6rs/core, r6rs/module, wg2, none, undecided
• Preferences:

WG1 - I/O

#52 read/write cyclic data

SRFI-38 standardizes the #0=(1 . #0#) shared structure notation for read/write. In the case of write, this can be expensive to compute, but otherwise the common case of the repl printing a cyclic structure results in an infinite loop.

Do we want to add support for this, as an option or separate set of procedures?

srfi-38 for separate procedures or native to require read and write to handle cyclic notation.

• Options: srfi-38/core, srfi-38/module, native, no, wg2, undecided
• Preferences:

WG1 - Macros

#8 SRFI-46 ellipse specifier in syntax-rules

As an alternative to #7, SRFI-46 proposed allowing an optional ellipse specified as an identifier before the literals list in syntax-rules:

(syntax-rules ::: () <ellipse now represented as ::: instead of ...>)

Do we allow this?

• Options: yes/core, yes/module, no, wg2, undecided
• Preferences:

#9 tail patterns in syntax-rules

SRFI-46 and R6RS both allow a fixed number of tail patterns following an ellipsis in a syntax-rules pattern:

(P1 ... Pk Pe <ellipsis> Pm+1 ... Pn)

R6RS further allows dotted tail patterns

(P1 ... Pk Pe <ellipsis> Pm+1 ... Pn . Px)

where Px only matches a dotted list.

Do we allow either or both of these extensions?

• Options: tail/core, tail/module, dotted-tail/core, dotted-tail/module, both/core, both/module, no, wg2, undecided
• Preferences:

WG1 - Numerics

#22 mantissa widths

R6RS introduced the concept of mantissa widths as an alternative to the R5RS #s in numbers. Do we want either or both of these?

• Options: r5rs, r6rs, both, no, wg2, undecided
• Preferences:

WG1 - Reader Syntax

#11 case-sensitivity

Does the reader fold case by default, and if so how?

Yes to fold-case (R5RS) no to preserve case (R6RS), additional votes to come later from specific proposals.

• Options: yes, no, implementation-determined, undecided
• Preferences:

#14 alternate comment syntax

R6RS provides support for #; nested sexp comments, and #| ... |# nested block comments. Do we include either or both of these?

• Options: sexp, block, both, no, wg2, undecided
• Preferences:

WG1 - Strings and Chars

#26 string normalization

R6RS provides procedures to explicitly convert strings back and forth between the four Unicode normalization forms.

The previous phrasing of this option was overly vague, referring to "any form of normalization." I've had to treat yes votes as undecided for lack of a better default. If you voted yes before please choose one of the following options or write in your own proposal.

• generic - string-normalize converts to a single implementation-defined normal form
• separate - string-compose-canonical, string-decompose-canonical and string-decompose-compatibility gives orthogonal control over the normalization being performed
• specific - string-normalize-{nfd,nfc,nfkd,nfkc} converts explicitly to the four normal forms defined in the Unicode standard
• agnostic - string-ni=?' etc. provides an API of basic normalization insensitive procedures without explicitly converting the strings, analagous to string-ci=?'

Note UnicodeCowan currently provides specific normalization procedures.

• Options: generic/core, generic/module, separate/core, separate/module, specific/core, specific/module, agnostic/core, agnostic/module, no, wg2, undecided
• Preferences: