[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] fifth ballot results are in
- To: scheme-reports-wg1@x
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] fifth ballot results are in
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:35:37 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports@x
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYNN+djrORV+Cz_9-rvP_R1OFPf=cGq=drftBY8wCRP8uQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAMMPzYNN+djrORV+Cz_9-rvP_R1OFPf=cGq=drftBY8wCRP8uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> I haven't had a chance to look through [the fifth ballot results] yet.
I have, and I'm very happy with almost all of them. I was surprised
that the (scheme r6rs base) library passed, given that a bunch of R6RS
procedures and, more importantly, semantics failed. It'll have to be
made very clear that supporting (scheme r6rs base) doesn't make an R7RS
implementation into an R6RS-base implementation. Indeed, it's not clear
exactly what it does mean.
Brad Lucier said that supporting -nan.0 was a step toward exposing the
bits of an IEEE NaN, but it really isn't; it's just a syntactic synonym.
Specifying +nan.0 does not necessarily force the sign bit on, nor does
specifying -nan.0 necessarily force it off.
The -ni procedures are dead, and I for one don't mourn them.
The following four tickets had no majority vote, and so will need to
appear on the sixth ballot (presumably the Formal Comments ballot):
#286 Numeric *-valued procedures for R5RS and R6RS-base compatibility
The plurality proposal was to vote these out and revert to R5RS semantics
for `real? rational? integer?` (that is, a complex number is real if
its imaginary part is zero, whether exact or inexact).
#309 Allow circular lists in MAP and FOR-EACH for SRFI-1 compatibility
The plurality proposal was to allow circular lists.
#319 Make special treatment of CAPITAL SIGMA optional
The plurality proposal was to allow implementations not to treat the
downcasing of GREEK LETTER CAPITAL SIGMA as a special case, which
#345 Should 0.0 and -0.0 be distinct in the sense of EQV?
The plurality proposal was to leave this unspecified (the R5RS default
is that they are indistinguishable).
In addition, #229 Are NaN values EQV? will probably be reconsidered
along with #345 as part of a general re-evaluation of `eqv?`.
John Cowan <cowan@x> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
"Make a case, man; you're full of naked assertions, just like Nietzsche."
"Oh, i suffer from that, too. But you know, naked assertions or GTFO."
--heard on #scheme, sorta
Scheme-reports mailing list