[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] Arthur Gleckler's rationales for 4th ballo votes
Am 31.08.2011 09:47, schrieb Alex Shinn:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Denis Washington<denisw@x> wrote:
>> I wouldn't say that R6RS consists of multiple reports, but of multiple
>> documents forming a single logical report; the naming scheme of these
>> documents support this view. The point is that you still have to support the
>> functionality in all documents to be an R6RS Scheme, while in R7RS, we have
>> a separation in multiple conformance levels which is expressed by the split
>> into two reports. Therefore, I'd call the reorganization in R7RS much more
>> substantial, because it is not only cosmetic.
>> So I'm not basing my argument against the "revision" term on some vague
>> notion of edit distance, but on the fact that the upcoming reports present a
>> substantial semantic restructuring in that they redefine what Scheme
>> actually is - a "language tower" rather than a single language, if you will.
> Technically, it has not been decided if we'll have a tower
> at all - that's up to the work of WG2. Although I mentioned
> possible conformance levels, the chair of WG2 has said he
> only wants libraries.
OK, I didn't know.
> Regardless, the name of the product of WG2 is outside the
> scope of the WG1 ballot in question - we're only comparing
> the WG1 draft to previous reports.
In the end, the two "product" names still have to fit together, so
regardless of the fact that the WG1 name is the only one that is decided
on now, it cannot be viewed in isolation; one still needs to think about
whether there would be a nicely matching WG2 name.
> And as Arthur says, the reports have always had varying
> levels of conformance. The big change came in R6RS,
> where they attempted to _remove_ the levels of conformance,
> by making all features mandatory and specifying formerly
> undefined behavior.
Scheme-reports mailing list