[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] Call for vote: SRFI 111, Boxes

I vote "yes" because I think it's useful to standardize on the interface 
for boxes.

However, I'd favor box-ref/box-set! for the names of the getter/setter, 
for similarity with vectors and strings.

Even though it's possible for individual programmers to rename library 
identifiers, I think that reading others' code is likely to be improved 
if standard names are chosen so that they would be used in their 
original form as much as possible.
Daniel Villeneuve

On 02/07/13 01:01 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from John Cowan <cowan@x> -----
> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:56:55 -0400
> From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
> To: scheme-reports-wg2@x
> Subject: [scheme-reports-wg2] Call for vote: SRFI 111, Boxes
> The time has come to vote on SRFI 111, Boxes, to determine if it should
> become an optional part of the R7RS large language.  The voting period
> as shown on the WG2Calendar runs from now until noon UTC on July 8.
> Vote by replying to this email with either "Yes" or "No" and any comments
> you may have.
> I have slightly jumped the gun on SRFI finalization.  Due to an overload
> of family responsibilities followed by an Internet outage, I did not
> timely request SRFI 111 to be finalized.  Therefore, the form I expect
> to be final is still at <http:www.ccil.org/~cowan/temp/srfi-111.html>.
> Please use that as the draft you vote on.  I expect finalization in the
> next day or so, as my last call of June 19 got no replies.
> Because the new WG2 charter has not yet been approved, please vote if
> you *intend* to become part of WG2 when it is approved.  If for whatever
> reason you cannot post to <scheme-reports-wg2@x>, send
> your vote privately to me and I will forward it.  Because we are still
> in transition, I have forwarded to the scheme-reports mailing list, but votes
> there may be lost; send them to the WG2 list or direct to me instead.

Scheme-reports mailing list