[Scheme-reports] R7RS large process discussion WAS Re: final draft of the R7RS small language

[Grant Rettke <grettke@x>]

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 1:24 AM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:
> Grant Rettke scripsit:
>
>> How does a docket become a StandardDocket vs a ConsentDocket?
>
> If I think it's _just obvious_ that a particular API belongs in
> R7RS-large, I'll put it into ConsentDocket and allow it to pass by
> unanimous consent -- that is, if nobody objects.  For example, there
> isn't any doubt that SRFI-1 belongs in R7RS-large: it's been around a
> while, is heavily used, widely available, etc.  It would be a waste of
> time to vote on it, so we won't, unless someone insists on it.

Here is another perspective of R7RS wg2 as teaching mechanism. What I
mean is that I had in the past few years come up with my idea of what
R7RS large might look like. Granted, this was in my head, not well
thought through, and I never shared it with anyone. I had kind of
envisioned R7RS wg2 as determined entirely by a big table of "major"
(by some definition) implementations of R5RS and R6RS where you look
at a feature or SRFI, look who provides it, see that it is obvious for
wg2, and maybe follow it by some or no discussion, and then go along
with the standardization process.

I kind of look at it starting from the end; the goal of wg2 is to
produce a usable batteries included system, so for people who are not
intimately involved with Scheme, what would they want/need to know to
see why it is that way.

>> I'm trying to wrap my head around where the "work" lives.
> What I think you mean by "the work" is the detailed development of
> the procedures and syntax, as well as the sample implementation.
> All that happens as part of the SRFI process, which is spelled out at
> <http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-process.html>.

After reading about the srfi-process, it strikes me as a good start
for wg2 since it is a working process and it has a historical place.
Part of it strikes me as kind of an odd fit though, as though it is
slightly different than the goal of wg2, one of agreement or shared
desire. WG2 seems more like, report on what is the current state of
things.

FFI is kind of an easy one to pick on; the discussion always converges
on "it is too hard to standardize" and yet I bet that the majority of
distributions provide it, so that is kind of a curiosity, is it
obvious whether it should be included, or not? From an srfi
perspective it seems a bad fit, but from practical wg2 goals, it seems
perfect.

Is the SRFI process meant more for implementers, or users, or both?
Who is WG2 serving, users, implementers, or both?

Thanks for your patience bearing with me learning about how this is all going.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports