Re: [Scheme-reports] Strong win later reversed: Real numbers have imaginary part #e0

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

This was revisited in item #286 in the 5th ballot, and

we voted to revert the previous decision.

The argument was that the distinction between

real? and real-valued? is impossible to keep track

of for a novice, which was a strong enough argument

to allow the revote.

-- 

Alex

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Mark H Weaver <mhw@x> wrote:

On the third ballot[1], #117 (Real numbers have imaginary part #e0)
resulted in a strong 6:2 win for "exact-only", and this decision was
implemented in R7RS-draft-3, and carried forward in drafts 4-6.

However, this change was reverted in R7RS-draft-7.  The ticket[2] states
"This decision was reversed because it created a silent incompatibility
with R5RS", but the compatibility issues were obviously known to the WG
at the time of the third ballot (three out of five rationales explicitly
mentioned compatibility), and yet "exact-only" still won 6 out of 8
votes.

How can such a strong win for "exact-only" be reversed by the editors,
and why wasn't this reversal brought up on the mailing list?

      Mark

[1] http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/WG1Ballot3Results#WG1-Numerics
[2] http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/ticket/117

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

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