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:
- Options: ganz, hsu, shinn, r6rs, r6rs--, undecided
- Preferences: shinn, r6rs--, hsu, r6rs, ganz
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:
- Options: cowan/core, cowan/module, srfi-27/core, srfi-27/module, no, wg2, undecided
- Preferences: cowan/core, cowan/module, no, wg2, srfi-27/module, srfi/27-core
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:
- Options: cowan/core, cowan/module, r6rs/core, r6rs/module, wg2, none, undecided
- Preferences: r6rs/core, r6rs/module, cowan/module, cowan/core, none, wg2
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: native, srfi-38/core, srfi-38/module, wg2, no
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: yes/core, yes/module, wg2, no
#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: both/core, both/module, tail/core, tail/module, dotted-tail/core, dotted-tail/module, wg2, no
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: no, r5rs, r6rs, both
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: implementation-determined, no, yes
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: both, block, sexp
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: specific/module, separate/module, agnostic/module, generic/module, no, specific/core, separate/core, agnostic/core, agnostic/module