[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