Alex Shinn scripsit: > http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/WG1Ballot5Results > 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 Unicode requires. #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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
