On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 09:34:59AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > It's a Google Group, so you can sign up at > <https://groups.google.com/group/scheme-reports-wg2>.
This just shows the archive. After enabling JavaScript, there's some more stuff but no sign-up instructions. > > I agree, this situation sucks and I'm hoping to eventually fix this by > > integrating bignum support in core. However, note that this is different > > from what I'm suggesting: I'm not saying the complete numeric tower > > should be an optional add-on, but that it should only be required by > > specific parts of WG2. See it as an additional constraint on some > > parts of WG2, which only apply *when you want to support those parts*. > > Understood. It's perfectly fine to vote no, in that case. Excellent. > However, the set API as well as the new hash-table API to replace SRFI > 69 (still in progress) depends on comparators, and therefore I intend to > propose comparators as a mandatory part of R7RS-large, so that people can > just assume (as they can with the existing R7RS-small types) that they > are available. If an implementation doesn't support hash tables, it might not need comparators either. This is the same objection as I have with requiring the full numeric tower. > Being able to do this is part of the point of having a > -large *standard* as opposed to just writing a lot of SRFIs. I don't see why this has to be. It will just exclude small specialised implementations which would still like to support a standardised library if it fits its intended use cases. For example, Chibi Scheme might decide to ship a few WG2 modules, but you can compile it without bignum support. Does that mean it isn't WG2-compatible? Cheers, Peter -- http://www.more-magic.net _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
