Changes between Version 8 and Version 9 of FormalCommentSummary


Ignore:
Timestamp:
12/06/12 11:46:04 (4 years ago)
Author:
cowan
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • FormalCommentSummary

    v8 v9  
    1 Near the end of the WG1 process, a Formal Comment sub-process was performed based on the sixth draft.  A total of 21 Formal Comments were received, which are listed here.  Note that the ticket numbers are links to verbatim copies of the actual comments; in each case, the first sentence here is the commenter's own summary, with editorial notes in square brackets.  For details of WG votes, see [wiki:WG1Ballot6Results]. 
     1Near the end of the WG1 process, a Formal Comment sub-process was performed based on the sixth draft.  A total of 21 Formal Comments and one Formal Objection were received, which are listed here.  Note that the ticket numbers are links to verbatim copies of the actual comments; in each case, the first sentence here is the commenter's own summary, with editorial notes in square brackets.  For details of WG votes, see [wiki:WG1Ballot6Results]. 
    22 
    3 Quick list of Formal Comments that were not adopted, or not in their entirety:  #360, #421, #423, #434, #435, #436, #438, #440, #456. 
     3== Not accepted, or not accepted in their entirety == 
     4 
     5=== Commenter may not be satisfied === 
     6 
     7#421: #!fold-case and `#!no-fold-case` have no final delimiter.  Adopted in principle after a vote by the WG, although a different syntax was chosen (they are delimited by whitespace).  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
     8 
     9#423: When does `eqv?` return `#t` for procedures? [pointed out inconsistencies and proposed a return to the R5RS rule]  Rejected by a vote of the WG, which kept the R6RS rules.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
     10 
     11#434: List of named characters is incomplete.  Treated mostly as editorial, and adopted by the editors.  The WG voted not to adopt any specific recommended source of named characters for implementation extensions.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
     12 
     13#435: Bytevectors should be called u8vectors.  Rejected by the editors, on the grounds that the WG had already voted and no new arguments had been presented.  There was considerable (and widening) dispute [http://lists.scheme-reports.org/pipermail/scheme-reports/2012-July/002386.html on the scheme-reports mailing list], but the editors' view prevailed and no vote was taken.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
     14 
     15#436: Generalization of append, map, and for-each to other sequences.  The proposed `vector-append` and `bytevector-append` procedures were adopted by a vote of the WG.  Neither the editors nor any WG member chose to file a ballot ticket for the `bytevector-map` and `bytevector-for-each` procedures, so they were never voted on by the WG.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
     16 
     17#438: Inconsistency of sequence copying procedures.  Adopted by a vote of the WG.  However, the suggestions to reorder the arguments of the destructive `*-copy!` procedures and to to rename various procedures were not considered, as neither the editors nor any member chose to file ballot tickets.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
     18 
     19#440: Write procedure is not backwards compatible.  Rejected by a vote of the WG, which adopted three procedures `write-simple` (traditional `write`), `write` (with datum labels only to break cycles), and `write-shared` (datum labels to show all shared structure, the `write-with-shared-structure` of SRFI-38).  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
     20 
     21#456: Adoption of the standard [R6RS] ''was'' as widespread as had been hoped.  Treated as editorial.  Recognizing the delicate nature of the issue, the editors removed the language objected to, and replaced it by new and less contentious language.  The new language was also objected to.  The editors decided to go no further.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
     22 
     23=== Commenter is satisfied === 
     24 
     25#360: Change syntax of escaped symbols from `|<symbol element>*|` to `#"<string element>*"`.  Rejected by the editors, who concluded that there was no precedent for it, that it conflicted with the Racket lexical syntax for byte strings, and that it was most unlikely to pass a vote.  The commenter is satisfied. 
     26 
     27#477 (a Formal Objection) Memoization is not possible in portable R7RS [due to the seventh draft's definition of `eqv?`].  Adopted by a vote of the WG; the editors used different language.  The objector is satisfied. 
     28 
     29== Accepted or accepted in principle == 
    430 
    531#357: The epoch of `current-second` should be 1970-01-01 00:00:00 TAI.  Adopted by a vote of the WG; see [wiki:WG1Ballot5Results] for details. 
    6  
    7 #360: Change syntax of escaped symbols from `|<symbol element>*|` to `#"<string element>*"`.  Rejected by the editors, who concluded that there was no precedent for it, that it conflicted with the Racket lexical syntax for byte strings, and that it was most unlikely to pass a vote.  The commenter is satisfied. 
    832 
    933#372: `(exit #t)` should be the same as `(exit)`.  Adopted by a vote of the WG. 
     
    1539#420: Scope of `#!fold-case` and `#!no-fold-case` [clarify that it is lexical, not dynamic].  Treated as editorial, and adopted by the editors. 
    1640 
    17 #421: #!fold-case and `#!no-fold-case` have no final delimiter.  Adopted in principle after a vote by the WG, although a different syntax was chosen (they are delimited by whitespace).  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
    18  
    19 #423: When does `eqv?` return `#t` for procedures? [pointed out inconsistencies and proposed a return to the R5RS rule]  Rejected by a vote of the WG, which kept the R6RS rules.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
    20  
    2141#424: Add write-string procedure to `(scheme base)`.  Adopted by a vote of the WG. 
    2242 
     
    2747#431: The continuation used when 'guard' re-raises an exception isn't specified.  Treated as editorial, and adopted by the editors. 
    2848 
    29 #434: List of named characters is incomplete.  Treated mostly as editorial, and adopted by the editors.  The WG voted not to adopt any specific recommended source of named characters for implementation extensions.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
    30  
    31 #435: Bytevectors should be called u8vectors.  Rejected by the editors, on the grounds that the WG had already voted and no new arguments had been presented.  There was considerable (and widening) dispute [http://lists.scheme-reports.org/pipermail/scheme-reports/2012-July/002386.html on the scheme-reports mailing list], but the editors' view prevailed and no vote was taken.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
    32  
    33 #436: Generalization of append, map, and for-each to other sequences.  The proposed `vector-append` and `bytevector-append` procedures were adopted by a vote of the WG.  Neither the editors nor any WG member chose to file a ballot ticket for the `bytevector-map` and `bytevector-for-each` procedures, so they were never voted on by the WG.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
    34  
    35 #438: Inconsistency of sequence copying procedures.  Adopted by a vote of the WG.  However, the suggestions to reorder the arguments of the destructive `*-copy!` procedures and to to rename various procedures were not considered, as neither the editors nor any member chose to file ballot tickets.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
    36  
    3749#439: Bidirectional ports and `port-open?`.  Adopted by a vote of the WG. 
    38  
    39 #440: Write procedure is not backwards compatible.  Rejected by a vote of the WG, which adopted three procedures `write-simple` (traditional `write`), `write` (with datum labels only to break cycles), and `write-shared` (datum labels to show all shared structure, the `write-with-shared-structure` of SRFI-38).  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
    4050 
    4151#453: The denotational semantics is inadequate.  Treated as editorial and substantially adopted by the editors.  The WG voted whether to remove the formal semantics altogether or attempt to repair it, and decided on the latter. 
     
    4353#455: The word "dynamic environment" is largely unspecified.  Treated as editorial and substantially adopted by the editors. 
    4454 
    45 #456: Adoption of the standard [R6RS] ''was'' as widespread as had been hoped.  Treated as editorial.  Recognizing the delicate nature of the issue, the editors removed the language objected to, and replaced it by new and less contentious language.  The new language was also objected to.  The editors decided to go no further.  The commenter was asked if he is satisfied, but made no reply. 
    46  
    47 #477 (a Formal Objection) Memoization is not possible in portable R7RS [due to the seventh draft's definition of `eqv?`].  Adopted by a vote of the WG; the editors used different language.  The objector is satisfied.