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

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

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> > #458 Remove the formal semantics from the report
> Please read the ballot item - the semantics have already been fixed.

For dynamic-wind, yes.  There is still eval and interaction-environment
missing (which means also REPL semantics, specifically the replacement of
top-level definitions by new ones) and the broken model of the undefined
order of evaluation (it shuffles the order, but only once per lexical
instance of a procedure call, not per call).

> > #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.

It would be so in a system that allows definitions and expressions directly
in libraries (a non-portable extension) and allows library declarations
intermingled with code (another non-portable extension).

> > #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?

Fixed, thanks.  I added to the rationale that the port can always be
set using the current-output-port parameter.

John Cowan    <cowan@x>     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
But no living man am I!  You look upon a woman.  Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter.
You stand between me and my lord and kin.  Begone, if you be not deathless.
For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him.

Scheme-reports mailing list