Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] John Cowan's votes on the sixth ballot

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

Thank you John for the prompt and detailed rationales!

A few minor comments.

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:09 AM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:
>
> #458 Remove the formal semantics from the report
> Preferences: remove
> Rationale:  The formal semantics are broken as written, and even if we
> patched it up, it would still be less than helpful.  We need to let a
> separate group do a better job.

Please read the ballot item - the semantics have already been fixed.

> #448 Add library declaration include-library-declarations
> Preferences: include-library-declarations
> Rationale:  Though this name is verbose even by Scheme standards, what
> it provides is very helpful.  In simple implementations, it can be the
> same as include.

I agree with your vote, but your motivation seems incorrect.
It is very much impossible for this to be the same as include,
and the confusion involved here leads me to question your
motivation for enforcing the order of processing in #353.

> #385 Merge `write-bytevector` and `write-bytevector-partial`
> Preferences: offsets-last
> Rationale:  I think the port is less important than the stop/start.

The rationale seems contradictory - did you mean port-last?

> #373 (exit #t) should be the same as (exit)
> Preferences: boolean
> Rationale:  `Extended-true` is going too far: 0 means success on many
> systems, but failure (specifically: failure of unknown origin) on VMS.
> Portable code should stick with `#t` and `#f`.

Note the VMS meaning is "empty warning", not failure.

-- 
Alex

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