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. For a version of this page that may be more recent, see WG1ReBallotHarvey in WG2's repo for R7RS-large.


2010-11-01 14:33:46

Notes about results:

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.

I know there's no NO option, but according to John's excellent chart, the r6rs option is the only one that's way, way, way worse than nothing, because of "phasing: yes." Shinn gets the edge on simplicity: top-level only, explicit exports, etc. Ganz beats out Hsu also on simplicity, since Hsu has two columns in the table with different properties, already way too complicated.

I feel compelled to reiterate that none of these proposals strikes me as jewel-like.

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?

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?

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.

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?

#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?

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?

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.

Oh, please yes, let's not adopt all of C's mistakes. As I said before, I can't imagine why people think bug-avoidance important enough to put up with hygienic macros, and yet want such a bug-attractor as making "foo" and "Foo" mean two different things.

People have raised Unicode as an argument here, but there is a perfectly good Unicode case-folding standard; they invented it precisely so that programming languages can be international in scope without having to endorse the horror of making semantically identical glyphs turn semantically different.

#14 alternate comment syntax

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

... but I don't feel strongly about it, and I wish the voting mechanism gave us a way to say /how much/ we care about things. I'd spend all my votes on case folding and no-r6rs-modules, of the things so far on this ballot, if I could.

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.

Note UnicodeCowan currently provides specific normalization procedures.