Version 7 (modified by arcfide, 6 years ago) (diff)

Improve vote on #27


  • You may list as many of the options as you want in order of preference.
  • Options are comma-delimited (ignoring space) and case-insensitive.
  • You can pipe-delimit (|) options you want to give equal weight to.
  • You may write in your own option if you announce it to the list first.
  • You may specify a variant with option/variant, for example srfi-1/module to vote for srfi-1 but clarify it should be in a separate module. Please also include the srfi-1 option in this case.
  • You can write a free-form rationale after the "preferences" line,
  • module means "yes, but I want it in a separate module",
  • wg2 means "no, but I think it should go in WG2".
  • undecided means I want to discuss this issue further.
  • Abstain on any item by leaving the preferences blank.

WG1 Ballot Items To Finalize by July 1st

Previous Undecided and Re-opened Ballot Items

#32 user-defined types

Do we support any means of creating disjoint user-defined types, such as in SRFI-9, SRFI-99 or the R6RS record system?

WG1 voted srfi-9 before. New arguments against filter constructors were raised, so the ticket was re-opened.


Rationale: SRFI-9 is flawed by the filtering constructor and a lack of extensibility in its syntax, but represents a good minimal set of features that are found everywhere.

#28 binary I/O ports

Do we provide any binary input or output ports, and if so how do we construct them and operate on them? Can binary and textual operations be mixed on the different port types?

BinaryPortsCowan provides binary port operations, being a mild revision of the relevant parts of PortsCowan.

R6RS provides an entirely new I/O system, as well as a separate R5RS-compatible I/O system.

The withdrawn SRFI-91 provides yet another I/O system supporting binary ports.

Note this item as well as #29 and #31 specify semi-orthogonal aspects of I/O systems which are typically specified together by individual proposals. If the same proposal doesn't win for all three, the aspects will be merged as needed.

WG1 voted weakly in favor of PortsCowan before.

Rationale: I think we still need more time on this. R6RS' biggest trouble is its I/O system, and I don't want the same mistake being made again. We need more effort into this domain first by more people.

#83 Auxiliary Keywords

In R6RS auxiliary keywords (such as else in cond and case forms) are explicitly exported from the (rnrs base (6)) library. Do we want to bind and export these from the core library?

If else is bound in the default module, then it must be imported at the call site whenever using it in cond or it won't match hygienically.

If else is not bound in the default module, then it must not be bound or imported at the call site whenever using it in cond or it won't match hygienically.

Another option is to specify for cond and case that they match the else identifier literally, ignoring any hygiene. This breaks compatibility with R5RS and R6RS.

WG1 voted unbound previously. New issues were brought up on the list so the ticket was re-opened.


  • Options: bound, unbound, unhygienic, undecided
  • Default: unbound
  • Preferences: bound

Rationale: While there are advantages to being unbound, unbound is still too limited and the advantages do not outweight the disadvantages. Bound has a few disadvantages, but we gain much more flexibility and the advantages just outweigh the disadvantages. Unbound limits what you can do, while Bound presents only some minor inconvenience that sometimes occurs, but that is easily worked around in ways that aren't hacky.

#3 module naming convention

We need a naming convention for the core modules and standard libraries of the new module system.

The existing break down is based on John Cowan's earlier proposal of factorings in items #71, #72, #73, #74, #75, #76, #77, as well as an I/O module breakdown in PortsCowan. There have been various tickets proposing changing this, so we are re-opening the ticket.

Rationale: I have not had enough time to look this over.

New Ballot Items

WG1 - Core

#85 Blobs, bytevectors, byte-vectors, octet-vectors, or something else?

Now that we have blobs, we have to decide what to call them. R6RS uses bytevector, SRFI-4 and SRFI-68 uses u8vector, while the original WG1 proposal used blob (which is therefore the default).

  • Options: blob, bytevector, byte-vector, u8vector, octet-vector, undecided
  • Default: blob
  • Preferences: bytevector,u8vector,octet-vector,byte-vector,blob

Rationale: Blob doesn't give enough information to the reader and feels strange, despite its terseness. Bytevector very accurately describes the data structure we are dealing with. No matter how you decide to treat those bytes, we are still dealing with a vector of bytes, not a vector of 3 bits or something else. I disagree that there is confusion on how to use a bytevector just because the word "byte" appears in the name. On the other hand, blob gives no hints on how to use the structure at all, or even what sort of things might be available.

#118 Simple literals must be explicitly delimited.

In R5RS syntax such as #t#f is left unspecified - some readers may parse this as the true literal followed by false. R6RS requires identifiers, characters, booleans, number objects, and . to be terminated with a "delimiter" or by the end of input.


  • Options: delimited, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: delimited,unspecified

Rationale: I prefer to create less ambiguity here.

#119 Whether to treat # as a delimiter.

In R5RS foo#f is a valid identifier, whereas R6RS requires # to act as a delimiter, so that this would parse as the identifier foo followed by the false literal.

  • Options: delimiter, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: delimiter

Rationale: We have ways such as with the vertical bar of enclosing data, so there is no reason to make something like # confusing to the reader. |foo#f| is clear, while foo#f is not, so let's make # a delimiter.

#123 Extend unquote and unquote-splicing to multiple arguments

This is a change also made by R6RS (and CL).


  • Options: multiple, single, undecided
  • Default: single
  • Preferences: multiple

Rationale: Convincing arguments have been made as to why this is a good thing on the mailing list, and there are too many unsolved issues if we leave it as single.

#124 Nested quasiquote semantics


  • Proposals:
    • r5rs: unspecified
    • r6rs: strict and multiple (implies multiple for #123)
    • chicken: strict at level 0 (option 2 in second reference)
    • strict: strict at all levels (R6RS with single for #123)
  • Options: r5rs, r6rs, chicken, strict, undecided
  • Default: r5rs
  • Preferences: r6rs,strict

Rationale: R6RS makes things much easier to work with in this regard. We should adopt this. I have encountered situations where this makes a great deal of sense, especially in macro writing.

#125 Allow procedures not to be locations (making EQV? unspecified in some additional cases)

This is a change also made by R6RS, specifically:

A quasiquote expression may return either fresh, mutable objects or literal structure for any structure that is constructed at run time during the evaluation of the expression. Portions that do not need to be rebuilt are always literal

  • Options: r6rs, r5rs, undecided
  • Default: r5rs
  • Preferences: r6rs

Rationale: This gives more flexibility to the implementation when dealing with quasiquote.

#126 Partly specify the mutability of the values of quasiquote structures

This is a change also made by R6RS.

  • Options: r6rs, r5rs, undecided
  • Default: r5rs
  • Preferences: r6rs

Rationale: R6RS is an improvement in this regard.

#127 Specify the dynamic environment of the before and after procedures of dynamic-wind

R5RS is slightly ambiguous, saying

BEFORE is called whenever execution enters the dynamic extent of the call to THUNK and AFTER is called whenever it exits that dynamic extent.

without saying clearly whether before and after themselves are called before or after the dynamic extent is entered or exited.

  • Proposals:
    • outside: called outside the dynamic extent (R6RS)
    • inside: called inside the dynamic extent
    • unspecified: R5RS
  • Options: outside, inside, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: outside,inside,unspecified

Rationale: Making them outside is how I always think of these, and it makes more sense syntactically, visually, and in terms of programming convenience. Either way, we should specify one or the other, and not leave this unspecified.

#135 let-values and let*-values

These R6RS procedures were part of #77 (modularization of multiple values), but were never explicitly voted up or down by WG1, so I'm opening a new ticket for them.

  • Options: yes, no, module, wg2, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,wg2,module

Rationale: These are simple and very useful constructs that are in common use throughout. They are an excellent addition to the multiple values abstraction and should certainly be included.

#137 Current-seconds semantics still open

In issue #70, WG1 voted to make current-seconds an optional procedure, but there is no guidance about what it returns.

If we choose to specify this further, the big question is whether or not to include leap seconds - i.e. do we specify it as TAI or POSIX time (the choice of the epoch itself is less controversial and defaults to the POSIX epoch). TAI time has the advantage that it measures real, unambiguous time, and two calls to current-seconds more than a second apart are guaranteed to actually differ. POSIX time has the advantage of bug-for-bug compatibility with POSIX systems - the times are ambiguous, but they already have to deal with that.

The other issue is whether to return an integral number of seconds and lose the ability to specify subsecond real times, or return an inexact real (flonum) number of seconds and have to deal with variable precision depending on the date.

TimeCowan is equivalent to the posix-integer option, and in addition changes the name to current-posix-second.

  • Proposals:
    • cowan: TimeCowan
    • posix-integer: POSIX time as an exact integer value
    • posix-flonum: POSIX time as an inexact real value
    • tai-integer: TAI time as an exact integer value
    • tai-flonum: TAI time as an inexact real value
  • Options: cowan, unspecified, undecided, none
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: tai-flonum,tai-integer,cowan,posix-flonum,posix-integer

Rationale: We should make it clear when we are dealing in POSIX, and otherwise we should avoid bugs, even if they are common. Floating points are more useful, in this case.

#147 Allow literal file spec lists in include and include-ci

This could allow implementation-specific extensions to support files don't have character-string names. On the other hand, such names probably shouldn't be used as source files, and there are other ways to support this.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: undecided,no,yes

Rationale: We should not prohibit extensions to include, but we should only define string based names.

#148 Allow include-ci at top level

Currently include-ci is allowed as a module declaration but not at top level, as include is.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes

Rationale: This is an oversight.

#149 blob ports

We've voted to add string ports, which are character ports backed by Scheme strings. Since we have blobs another potential extension is blob ports, which binary ports backed by blobs. These are described in PortsCowan, but it's unclear if they were specifically voted for or against in the previous ballot.

  • Options: cowan, none, undecided
  • Default: none
  • Preferences: cowan

Rationale: We want a way to get a port abstraction on blobs.

#150 cond-expand at top level

Currently cond-expand is only valid as a module declaration. Should we allow it at top level in a program?

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: no

Rationale: cond-expand is a bad and flawed construct that should not be made available to the user. Its appearance in a module declaration is somewhat forgivable as a static construct, but it's use at anything other than inside of a module declaration is, IMO, very bad. We should not encourage its use.

#153 Renaming blob procedures

The blob procedures don't follow the same system as the rest. I propose these changes:

copy-blob => blob-copy
copy-blob! => blob-copy!
partial-blob => blob-copy-partial
copy-partial-blob! -> blob-copy-partial!

Note this is modulo the choice of "blob" or "bytevector" or whichever.

  • Options: new, original, remove, undecided
  • Default: original
  • Preferences: new,original

Rationale: Consistent naming is important here, and the hierarchical naming policy makes much more sense.

#154 Physical newline in a string equivalent to \n (that is, U+000A)

R5RS leaves this situation undefined, but R6RS, CL, and most languages that allow it (C does not) treat physical newline and escaped newline as equivalent, even if the local representation of line endings is \r\n or U+0085 or what not. Another possibility is to treat string literals broken across lines as errors.

  • Options: unix, local, error, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: unix,unspecified

Rationale: We should not allow the ambiguity that a string may contain different data when loaded on two different operating systems, so the treatment of newlines should be transparent. If an user wants to actually have a string with a CRLF line ending, then we can configure this at a port or output level. We should not do this at the reader level. This is also in keeping with standard practice in other languages, as the ticket mentions. Deviating from this is just confusing.

#155 Make recursively defined code an explicit error

Allowing examples like these will make code-walkers (including compilers and interpreters) excessively complicated:

#1=(begin (display #\x) . #1#)

(lambda #2=(a b c #2#) ...)

(+ . #3=(1 2 3 . #3#))

  • Options: error, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: unspecified

Rationale: Making this an error makes things more complicated, not less, and it makes life more difficult on naive implementations. Leave this unspecified.

#156 Replace "an error is signalled" with "an implementation-dependent object is raised as if by raise"

The following situations are described in draft 1 (and R5RS) with "an error is signalled":

  1. The file-spec given to call-with-input-file, call-with-output-file, open-input-file, or open-output-file represents a file that cannot be opened.
  1. An end of file is read from a port by read after the beginning of an object's external representation, but the external representation is incomplete and therefore not parsable.

I propose that in both cases the implementation be required to raise an exception as if by applying raise (that is, non-continuably) to an implementation-defined object, which means it can be caught by the R7RS exception system. Note that there is no requirement to create a fresh object.

  • Options: signal, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: signal

Rationale: Regardless of what is raised, the exception must be capturable by the exception system. I think it makes more sense to put this at the beginning and continue to use "an error is signalled," but with a more precise explanation of what this means.

#162 Remove DELAY and FORCE altogether

They are present in R4RS and R5RS, but not IEEE Scheme (which is our baseline). There are problems with a straightforward implementation that SRFI 45 fixes, but we voted down SRFI 45. Given that, we should consider removing them from the standard altogether. (Of course this does not mean compliant implementations can't provide them, it just means they won't be in a standard module.)

Since the inconsistency was raised and people are going so far as to remove these, we can entertain votes for SRFI-45's lazy again.

  • Options: remove, keep, lazy, undecided
  • Default: keep
  • Preferences: undecided

Rationale: I think this warrants more work before a final vote.

#164 Meaning of char-numeric?

The current draft, like R6RS, defines char-numeric? according to the nonexistent Unicode Numeric property. That has to be fixed. Options:

  1. Any. char-numeric? returns #t if the character's Numeric_Type property value is other than None. This means that many hanzi are both alphabetic and numeric.
  1. (Omitted, because it does not preserve IEEE Scheme)
  1. ASCII. Define char-numeric? to return #t only for ASCII 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. This retains compatibility witht R5RS, and we can still use char-numeric? to parse numbers, and safely use (- (char->integer c) (char->integer #\0)) to obtain the digit value the character represents. (Note: R5RS programs that use char-numeric? to parse numbers will break if we adopt the current draft's definition of char-numeric?). Gauche, Gambit, and Chicken (without the utf8 egg) work like this.
  1. Digit. Define char-numeric? as equivalent to the Numeric_Digit property (general category value of Nd). Guile 2.0, Kawa, Larceny, Ypsilon, Mosh, and IronScheme? work like this.
  1. Number. Define char-numeric? as equivalent to the Number property (general category values of Nd, Nl, No). Scheme48, Chez, and Ikarus work like this.
  • Options: any, number, digit, ascii, undecided
  • Default: ascii
  • Preferences: number,digit,ascii,any

Rationale: Number seems like the better and more general choice.

#166 Add predicate and accessors for error objects

(Email from Vincent Manis)

Problem: It's impossible to write a portable error handler that writes out the message and irritants that were passed to error.

This comes about because error creates an "implementation-defined object". I would assume that this hides the whole exception class hierarchy a WG2 implementation might provide. Since the message and irritants arguments to error are presumably living in this implementation-defined object, it should be simple enough to provide accessors to extract them, so that the above "portable error handler" can be written.

Suggestion: Add the following procedures:

(error-object? object)

Returns #t if object is something created by error, #f otherwise. Any constraints on type disjointness are up to the implementation.

(error-object-message object)

Returns the message of object.

(error-object-irritants object)

Returns a list of the irritants of object.

  • Options: manis, none, undecided
  • Default: none
  • Preferences:

#167 Add constructor for error objects

(Email from Vincent Manis)

Problem: Raising arbitrary objects as exceptions has been found to be nasty in some other languages (Python and C++ in particular).

This one is a tad speculative, but I'm reluctant to encourage people to write things like (raise 4), because of course it doesn't respect any module boundaries. I think the intent with the descriptions of raise and raise-continuable was to allow exception hierarchies to be added in WG2 without constraining them here. I would suggest adding a new procedure:

(make-error-object message obj ...)

to creates the implementation-defined object error is supposed to create, and adding a sentence to the raise and raise-continuable entries that says "The effect of applying this procedure to an object not created via make-error-object is implementation-defined." This allows WG2 to do what it wants regarding exception objects, and to limit the types of exception objects allowed, without breaking anything in WG1. Error can be defined as:

 (define (error message . objs)
   (raise (apply make-error-object message objs)))
  • Options: manis, none, undecided
  • Default: none
  • Preferences:

#169 Add standard-*-port procedures

These return the initial values of the corresponding current-*-port procedures, and can be used to access the implementation-provided standard input, output, and error streams.

  • Options: r6rs, none, undecided
  • Default: none
  • Preferences: r6rs

Rationale: These are very common and should be provided.

#171 Duplicate identifiers in define-record-type

What happens if define-record-type is specified with two fields that have the same accessor identifiers provided for both fields? More generally, we need to say what happens when any two identifiers are non-unique.

This ticket deals specifically with the situation where two identifiers (accessors or mutators) of two field clauses in a define-record-type form are identical. This is not meant to address field names and what happens or what it means if the field names are symbolically equivalent but lexically distinct.

  • Options: error, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: error

Rationale: This situation doesn't make sense, so it should be an error.

#173 Unifying BEGINs

In R5RS, there are three kinds of BEGINs:

1) All subforms are expressions; this can be used wherever an expression can be used. (4.2.3)

2) All subforms are definitions; this can be used wherever an internal definition can be used. (5.2.2)

3) Subforms can be definitions or expressions intermixed in any order; this can be used only at top level. (In R7RS we extend this to module top level as well). (5.1)

In particular,

(define (x)
 (define y 32)
   (define z 45)
   (set! y z))

is not licensed by any of these provisions, and consequently is not valid R5RS Scheme. Nevertheless, all of my usual Schemes accept the above definition except Scheme48/scsh and SSCM -- actually, SSCM fails when you invoke x rather than when you define it. So I'm proposing that we unify them for R7RS.

  • Options: cowan, r5rs, undecided
  • Default: r5rs
  • Preferences: cowan

Rationale: Having three different begins and two of which are not splicing while one is, but can only appear at the top-level, is confusing and not in the spirit of Scheme.

#174 Safe uses of multiple values

Currently, uses of values where the values are discarded anyway is illegal, but all the usual Schemes except SCM and SSCM accept them (I tested with begin). Should we go with something close to the R6RS wording?

"The continuations of all non-final expressions within a sequence of expressions, such as in lambda, begin, let, let*, letrec, letrec*, case, and cond forms, take an arbitrary number of values."

The definition of begin would need to change too:

(define-syntax begin
  (syntax-rules ()
    ((begin exp)
    ((begin exp1 exp2 ...)
         (lambda () exp1)
       (lambda args
         (begin exp2 ...))))))
  • Options: safe-values, r5rs, undecided
  • Default: r5rs
  • Preferences: safe-values

Rationale: Most everyone does this, it is pretty much a de facto standard and we should respect it.

#45 Record-let syntax and semantics

(record-let <record-data> ((<variable> <field>) ...)

Where each <variable> is filled with the corresponding data <field> from <record-data> as in a <let> expression, then the <body> is evaluated with these bindinds added and last expressions is returned. It is an error if the <record-data> does not contain corresponding <fields>.

Notice that this works directly on the data itself and that the data may contain more fields than the one cited in the record-let expression allowing code to be reused for inherited records.

Do we need to be able to check at runtime if a given record data has a given field ?

  • Options: record-let, none, undecided
  • Default: none
  • Preferences: record-let,undecided

Rationale: This is underspecified at the moment and should be cleaned up, but I think it should be in here, as it is a common thing to want to do.

#172 Multiple returns from map

R6RS specifies that map does not mutate previous results if there are multiple returns from map. Should we include this language?

  • Options: r6rs, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: r6rs

Rationale: This provides a measure of stability to map that we would not otherwise have.

#178 Shadowing with internal definitions

From Andre Von Tonder:

On p 19, some shadowing problems that would break lexical scope are declared to be errors. However, I believe there are other examples that shold be errors that are not covered by the report. In R6RS a more general criterion was used - please see R6RS for details. Here is an example that does not violate the WG1 report but should be an error becasue it violates lexical scoping. It does not violate the WG1 criterion because the meaning of x is not needed to determine whether (foo x p ) is a definition.

    (let ((x #f))
      (let-syntax ((foo (syntax-rules (x)
                          ((_ x y) (define y 'outer))
                          ((_ _ y) (define y 'inner)))))
        (let ()
          (foo x p)
          (define x #f) ;; this should be an error because
                        ;; it shadows the previous line where
                        ;; x has already been used in its outer sense
                        ;; during expansion

Here is another example that WG1 allows but that would cause violation of lexical scoping, because the macro would be evaluated first and treat ... as a placeholder in a region where it is shadowed to be the variable bound to 1:

    (let ()
      (define-syntax list-macro
        (syntax-rules ()
          ((_ x ...) (list x ...))))
      (define ... 1)    ;; This shadows ... in previously expanded macro
                        ;; body and will be a violation of lexical scoping
      (list-macro 1 2)) ;; if the last line evaluates to (1 2)

OTOH, it is unclear to me if WG1 allows this or not.

    (let ((x #f))
      (let-syntax ((foo (syntax-rules (x)
                          ((_ x y) (define y 'outer))
                          ((_ _ y) (define y 'inner)))))
        (let ()
          (define x #f)
          (foo x p)
  • Options: r6rs, r5rs, tonder, undecided
  • Default: r5rs
  • Preferences: r6rs,undecided

Rationale: I prefer the R6RS language here, as it scales well and is unambiguous.

WG1 - Modules

#112 REPL redefinitions

R5RS leaves unspecified the semantics of redefining a standard binding in the REPL. Do we want to specify semantics, or some set of allowed behavior for this in the WG1 standard?

REPLs may allow redefinition. The sixteen cases that occur are redefining to/from syntax/non-syntax locally/imported, and the issue is what happens to previous references to the definition. The general possibilities are:

  1. redefinition signals an error
  2. previous references are overridden (generally not possible if it the previous definition was syntax)
  3. previous references are preserved (indicating a new binding was created, often preferred if replacing non-syntax with syntax to avoid runtime errors)
  4. the semantics are left unspecified

So all 64 combinations for these 4 values in the following 4x4 matrix are feasible:

From/To? import import syntax define define-syntax
import ? ? ? ?
import syntax ? ? ? ?
define ? ? ? ?
define-syntax ? ? ? ?

Not all 64 combinations necessarily make sense. The default from R5RS is "unspecified", which means all 16 values are unspecified. Note in most implementations there is no such thing as a "reference" to existing syntax, since macros are expanded once, but this is not the case for SCM or Wraith Scheme.

  • Proposals:
    • override: override for all 16 values (non-syntax to syntax can break closure references)
    • preserve: preserve for all 16 values (must always create a new definition, not mutate, contrary to most implementations)
    • common: most common behavior among implementations - override, except preserve for non-syntax to syntax
    • simple: override, except unspecified for non-syntax to syntax
    • dynamic: override, except unspecified for syntax to anything (compatible with SCM/Wraith)
  • Options: override, preserve, common, dynamic, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: common,simple,unspecified,undecided

Rationale: We should go with the common case, which I think is overwhelmingly chosen and used. Either that or we can leave things unspecified, but this results in an ambiguous REPL, which I thought the WG1 was trying to avoid as much as possible.

#132 Imports override previous imports?

The current draft describes importing different bindings for the same identifier as "an error." R6RS explicitly requires this to signal an error. Do we want to change this?

This ticket refers only to modules - the top-level semantics are decided in ticket #112.

  • Options: override, preserve, error, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: error
  • Preferences: error,undecided

Rationale: Two imports into the same scope is essentially equivalent to two definitions with the same identifier as the target binding. Imports at the same level should be imported to the same scope, rather than introducing some new, implied scope.

#160 Interleaving of imports and code in a module


   (module (name)
     (begin c1 ...)
     (import (A))
     (begin c2 ...)
     (import (B))
     (begin c3 ...))

the intention, reference implementation, and specification from Scheme48 on which the syntax was based say that all imports establish the initial environment and then the code is expanded in order, but interleaving the imports is conceivable.

  • Options: shinn, interleave, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: shinn
  • Preferences: shinn,undecided,interleave

Rationale: Interleaving complicates the semantics. We should keep with imports as being at the top level.

#163 Allow modules at the REPL?

Should users be allowed to enter a module form at the REPL?

Note that there are actually many varying approaches to generating moduls at runtime, and Scheme48 and Chibi use an out-of-band REPL operation to create new modules, leaving the module binding open.

  • Options: yes, no, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,unspecified,no

Rationale: This is something that is very convenient to do, and can be implemented even on implementations that leave the module binding open.

#141 What are the semantics of modules with respect to separate compilation?

ModulesShinn says that the bodies of libraries are evaluated before any of the bodies of the importing library; does that include, eg, "at compile time" rather than at "run time"? It's not clear.

  • Options: compile-time, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: undecided
  • Preferences: undecided

Rationale: I think we need to introduce a clearer concept of what happens at compile time and what happens at run time, and understand the differences here. As such, I do not think that we should finalize this vote yet.

#158 mutating imports

Currently the semantics of calling set! or define on an imported binding is undefined. Do we want to specifically make this an error?

  • Options: error, allowed, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: error,undecided,unspecified

Rationale: Immutable imports is something that we definitely want to have, and is something that many implementations use. We should ensure, at least, that we maintain compatibility with those systems that use such semantics.

#159 base environments

What is the base environment provided by the repl, scripts, and the result of (scheme-report-environment 7)?

The intention was the base script environment was empty, scheme-report-environment was (scheme base), and repls were an implementation-defined superset thereof, but there are other options and we need to clarify this.

  • Options: shinn, undecided
    • shinn: intention as described above
  • Default: shinn
  • Preferences: undecided,shinn

Rationale: We should have more discussion on this.

#161 module argument to eval

It would be useful to allow modules as an argument to eval in addition to environments. This could be done with a special syntax, or just the module name as a list.

R6RS provides a procedure environment which just takes a list that looks like an import spec an generates the corresponding environment.

  • Options: r6rs, none, undecided
  • Default: r6rs
  • Preferences: r6rs,undecided,none

Rationale: R6RS' environment is extremely useful and works well.

#139 exit

The ballot statement for #62 said we had voted for exit when we voted for ModulesShinn, but that page doesn't mention exit. So we need to vote on it.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: yes
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: Very useful, yes.

#144 strip prefix on import

I'm thinking that for importing code that defines its external symbols as foo:this, foo:that, and foo:tother, there should be a type of import clause that strips a specified prefix from imported symbols. This is equivalent to renaming on import or renaming on export, but less painful, in the same way as the prefix import clause does.

Specific proposal: (strip-prefix <import-set> <prefix-identifier>).

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: This is very useful, and a common form among implementation module systems.

WG1 - I/O

#133 Provide read-line

This is an R6RS procedure that was part of PortsCowan, but never explicitly voted up or down by WG1. It reads a single line up to a line delimiter from a given port (the current input by default) and discards the line delimiter.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: very common and very useful.

#170 Add with-error-to-file procedure

Since we now have current-error-port, arguably we should have with-error-to-file for completeness.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: Useful, and it rounds things out.

#176 Are string ports exclusively character ports?

From scheme-reports discussion list, by John Cowan:

Jeronimo Pellegrini scripsit:

According to Section 6.7.1, "Conversely, not all character ports are binary ports -- for example, the /string ports/ discussed below". It is not really clear to wether the document *requires* string ports not to be binary or if it was just an example of a port that *could* be character but not binary.

I haven't thought about it, but I guess it *could* be the latter, if the environment provides a default encoding for string ports.

  • Options: character-only, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: character-only,undecided,unspecified

Rationale: We don't want to confuse binary and character ports. Strings should only have characters (code points) as their underlying subelement, and we should not confuse that with byte vectors or the like.

#177 Distinguish file and string ports?

Should there exist predicates that identify string and file ports?

  • Options: string-port?, file-port?, both, neither, undecided
  • Default: neither
  • Preferences: both,neither,string-port?,file-port?,undecided

Rationale: It makes sense to have them, and we should have both or neither rather than only one or the other, but some systems don't provide these.

#131 Output procedures return value

Output procedures (display, write, newline) currently return unspecified value, do we wish to make them return something (like in case of an error) or not?

Need proposals.

  • Options: r5rs, undecided
  • Default:
  • Preferences: r5rs,undecided

Rationale: We should stick with the unspecified error, there is no good reason to change this.

#134 Provide flush-output-port

This is an R6RS procedure that was part of PortsCowan, but never explicitly voted up or down by WG1. It flushes implementation output buffers on the specified port, the current output port by default.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: This is an extremely useful procedure and is crucial in some applications.

WG1 - Numerics

#117 Real numbers have imaginary part #e0

In R6RS, a complex number with imaginary part 0 is only real if the imaginary part is an exact 0. In R5RS, this was not true, and the requirement was simply that (zero? (imag-part Z)) be true.

  • Options: exact-only, any-zero, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: any-zero
  • Preferences: exact-only,any-zero,unspecified,undecided

Rationale: I prefer the exact form.

#120 Define the semantics of the transcendental functions more fully

R6RS has an extended description of the transcendental functions. Do we want to include this?

TODO: explain the exact diff, why it is desirable, and whether any reasonable alternatives are possible.


  • Options: r6rs, r5rs, undecided
  • Default: r5rs
  • Preferences: r6rs,undecided,r5rs

Rationale: We should clear this up and try to improve the descriptions of these things where we can, but we should still discuss exactly what we want to include and how/why.

#121 The semantics of expt for zero bases has been refined

This is a change also made by R6RS.

R5RS says:

Returns z1 raised to the power z2. For z1 /= 0, z1z2 = ez2 log z1; 0z is 1 if z = 0 and 0 otherwise.

R6RS says:

Returns z1 raised to the power z2. For nonzero z1, this is ez2 log z1. 0.0z is 1.0 if z = 0.0, and 0.0 if (real-part z) is positive. For other cases in which the first argument is zero, either an exception is raised [...] or an unspecified number object is returned.

  • Options: r6rs, r5rs, undecided
  • Default: r5rs
  • Preferences: r6rs,undecided,r5rs

Rationale: I prefer the more detailed description.

#122 Make infinity, NaN, and -0.0 semantics (when supported) consistent with IEEE 754

R5RS does not explicitly describe these values. We have to decide whether to require that, if an implementation provides any of these values, they must be consistent with IEEE 754.

R6RS both requires these values and requires they be consistent with IEEE 754.

  • Options: ieee-754, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: ieee-754,undecided,unspecified

Rationale: I don't think there is a good reason to deviate here, but I also think that we could benefit from some more discussion on this if there are good examples to why deviating from ieee-754 improves things.

#175 Control of significant digits or decimal places in NUMBER->STRING

Vincent Manis pleads for a way to write numbers with a specified precision:

I (Alaric Snell-Pym) wondered if this should be done via NUMBER->STRING or via an optional extra argument to ROUND etc specifying a precision, as a number like 0.01 to get two decimal places. How to provide significant figures rather than DP without introducing a base-10 dependency is left as an exercise to the reader (as is the task of deciding if I'm mad for not wanting a base-10 dependency)

  • Options: manis, none, undecided
  • Default: none
  • Preferences: none,undecided,manis

Rationale: This is better tackled by more complete formatting procedures or some additional rounding operation on strings. We should not clutter number->string to provide this specific functionality.

#138 DivisionRiastradh domain

Zero as a divisor aside, what should the domain of the proposed procedures be?

  1. Any real numbers?
  2. Integers only?
  3. Exact integers only?
  • Options: reals, integers, exact-integers
  • Default:
  • Preferences: undecided

Rationale: I want to see more discussion on this.

#217 DivisionRiastradh exactness preservation

What about exactness preservation?

  1. Not exactness preserving
  2. Exactness preserving unless the implementation can prove that an inexact argument can't affect the result (as in the case of an exact zero dividend and an inexact divisor)
  3. Exactness preserving in all cases
  • Options: not-exactness-preserving, exactness-preserving, exactness-preserving-unless
  • Default:
  • Preferences: undecided

Rationale: I want to see more discussion on this before I make my decision.

#140 Removing quotient, remainder, modulo

Are we removing the IEEE Scheme functions quotient, remainder, and modulo from WG1 Scheme? If so, we need a special justification, due to the charter text:

Existing features of IEEE Scheme may be removed only if a strong case can be made that they are fundamentally flawed. Insofar as practical, the language should be backwards compatible with the IEEE standard, the R5RS standard, and an appropriate subset of the R6RS standard.

Here's what DivisionRiastradh says:

Unfortunately, most programming languages give nondescript names such as DIV(IDE), QUOT(IENT), MOD(ULO), and REM(AINDER) to these operations. The language should make clear to programmers what division operations their programs are performing, especially when negative dividends and divisors can arise, but perhaps may not often arise during testing.


The R5RS gives the names quotient and remainder to the truncating division operator pair, and the name modulo to the remainder half of the flooring division operator pair. For all these three procedures in the R5RS, the dividend may be any integer, and the divisor may be any nonzero integer.

On the other hand, we may prefer relegating them to a backward-compatibility module.

Vote "yes" to keep, "no" to remove, and "module" to relegate to a module.

  • Options: yes, no, module, undecided
  • Default: yes
  • Preferences: module,yes,undecided,no

Rationale: I think we can reasonably relegate these, but I'm hesitant to remove them completely, since they tend to be very commonly used. More discussion is a good thing here.

#151 Extend finite? and nan? to non-real values

R6RS specifies the domain of finite? and nan? as the real numbers only. I propose that finite? return #t on a non-real value iff both the real part and the imaginary part are finite and not +nan.0, and that nan? return #t on a non-real value iff either the real or the imaginary part is +nan.0.

  • Proposals:
    • cowan: the above description
  • Options: cowan, unspecified, undecided
  • Default: unspecified
  • Preferences: undecided,cowan,unspecified

Rationale: I don't know the ramifications of this, and I would like more discussion on this.

#152 exact-integer-sqrt inconsistent with multiple values module

R5RS does not actually specify any procedures which return multiple values, and so the decision to separate multiple values to a module was reasonable. However, we also voted to make exact-integer-sqrt, which is in the base module, return multiple values, namely the root and the remainder. That would make the procedure useless unless multiple values are provided.

We can either make multiple values not a module, make exact-integer-sqrt return a list (or single integer) rather than multiple values, relegate exact-integer-sqrt to a new module, remove it altogether, or do nothing and leave the inconsistency.

  • Options: values-in-core, return-list, return-pair, return-root-only, new-module, remove, nothing, undecided
  • Default: nothing
  • Preferences: values-in-core,new-module,nothing,undecided,return-root-only,remove,return-pair,return-list

Rationale: I don't want to have any procedure in the language that uses lists/pairs as intermediate container constructs, as I am offended (in some ways) by that sort of conflation of the use of lists. Values should be in the core.

#180 Make case and cond clauses into bodies

Andy Wingo suggests: make the clauses in case and cond forms (without =>, naturally) be BODY instances, to allow them to have definitions. It is well defined AFAIK, and costs nothing.

The counter-argument is that it doesn't "look" like the sort of place definitions are allowed.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: There is no reason not to do this. If you don't like the style, then don't use it, but a standards body should not be in charge of dictating good style.

#181 Add WHEN and UNLESS to the base module

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: These are very useful and help to discourage one-armed ifs.

#182 Add WHILE and UNTIL

These trivial syntaxes add familiarity for new Scheme programmers coming from other languages, as will almost always be the case. LOOP is too big and named-LET too alien.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: no,undecided,yes

Rationale: They are rarely if ever used among non-beginner Scheme programmers, and I know of very few teachers who would encourage its use. Thus, they don't provide enough usefulness to the general Scheme community to warrant standardization.

#183 Escaped newline removes following whitespace?

Andy Wingo suggests the R6RS handling of escaped embedded newlines:

    "asdadf \

in R6RS has the same meaning as "asdf asdfadf". It allows you to nicely indent strings that you need to line-break for width. I suggest that the production


within string literals be elided.

Note an alternate method for handling embedded strings with nice indentation is scribble syntax.

We voted on various string syntaxes previously but did not specifically propose this R6RS extension. We should have a rationale if we don't follow it.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: This is really useful, but the scribble syntax is also very useful, and we should consider this as a separate ticket.

#184 Require CHAR=?, STRING=? etc. to accept arbitrary numbers of arguments?

R5RS makes a point of specifying that supporting more than two arguments is optional. (Everything not explicitly mentioned is optional, so this may have significance.) R6RS requires accepting 2 or more arguments. Currently Racket, Gambit, Guile, Chez, Ikarus, Larceny, Ypsilon, Mosh, and Scheme 9 support the feature, whereas Gauche, MIT, Chicken, Bigloo, Scheme48/scsh, Kawa, SISC, Chibi, STklos, and SSCM don't.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: undecided,yes,no

Rationale: I don't understand why we would limit this. It seems like an strange limitation to enforce on users. I would like to see more rationale on why we might want to vote no, but otherwise I tihnk they should accept multiple numbers of arguments.

#185 Add sixth "centered" division operator

From the Guile manual:

  • Scheme Procedure: centered/ x y
  • Scheme Procedure: centered-quotient x y
  • Scheme Procedure: centered-remainder x y

These procedures accept two real numbers x and y, where the divisor y must be non-zero. centered-quotient returns the integer q and centered-remainder returns the real number r such that x = q*y + r and -|y/2| <= r < |y/2|. centered/ returns both q and r, and is more efficient than computing each separately.

Note that centered-quotient returns x/y rounded to the nearest integer. When x/y lies exactly half-way between two integers, the tie is broken according to the sign of y. If y > 0, ties are rounded toward positive infinity, otherwise they are rounded toward negative infinity. This is a consequence of the requirement that -|y/2| <= r < |y/2|.

Note that these operators are equivalent to the R6RS operators div0, mod0, and div0-and-mod0.

--Andy Wingo

Taylor Campbell thinks these are useless. We should probably have use cases for _any_ division operator we include.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: undecided

Rationale: I don't understand these well enough to vote on them yet.

#195 Editorial: proposed rewording for begin

The documentation for `begin' specifies that it is a sequential construct; but really it splices as well, and also of course it's a keyword for the module system currently. This is inaccurate of the spec to say that "begin is for sequencing".

Suggestion: adopt the language of R6RS section 11.4.7.

--Andy Wingo

We should explain somewhere the four kinds of begins: (begin expr ...), (begin decl ...), top-level begin, and module-top-level begin. Note that R7RS like R5RS does not have (begin decl ... expr ...).

Vote yes to adopt the R6RS description, modified for differences in the language.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: I think we ought to have a splicing begin form, so I don't know what else would differ between R6RS and R7RS in this regard.

#198 Make it an error for a procedure mapped by MAP and friends to mutate the result list/string/vector

This is possibly difficult to enforce, and can break existing R5RS programs written in very bad style.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: We don't have to enforce this, but it does let people write things in a way that they can get away with being slightly lazy. Making it an error is a good thing in this case.

#199 Make it an error for a procedure mapped by MAP and friends to return more than once

This is possibly difficult to enforce, and can break existing R5RS programs.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: undecided,yes,no

Rationale: I would like to know the ramifications of this.

#200 Completing the blob procedures

Add blob, blob-map, blob-for-each, and blob conversion functions to and from lists/vectors/strings.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: undecided,yes,no

Ratione: I know that these would be useful, but I don't know what they would look like, and they should be in the spirit of blobs and not ad hoc.

#205 Roll partial-blob-copy(!) into blob-copy(!)

... with extra arguments.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: This simplifies the name space and should make things easier. I like this sort of interface better than remembering another name.

#206 Provide read-syntax for blobs

R6RS provides a #vu8(...) read-syntax for bytevectors. SRFI-4 uses #u8(...).

  • Options: r6rs, srfi-4, none, undecided
  • Default: none
  • Preferences: r6rs,srfi-4,undecided,none

Rationale: We should have one, regardless of what we pick, and I prefer the more descriptive (slightly) R6RS version more than the SRFI-4 version.

#207 Editorial: Polar complex numbers are inexact

Add a note saying that 1@2 and (make-polar 1 2) MAY evaluate to an inexact complex number.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: undecided,yes,no

Rationale: I haven't thought enough about this.

#208 Is || a valid identifier?

The grammar in 7.1.1 allows || as an <identifier>. However, page 5 suggests the |...| form is only for convenience (e.g. |foo bar| is equivalent to foo\x20;bar). There's no way to normalise || to anything without the vertical bars that's a valid identifier. Was that intentional, or should the rule be

<vertical bar> <symbol element>+ <vertical bar>

Vote remove to remove the |...| syntax altogether.

  • Options: remove, empty-valid, empty-invalid, undecided
  • Default: empty-valid
  • Preferences: empty-valid,empty-invalid,undecided,removed
Rationale: There's no reason to limit the bar syntax when
is a perfectly

good identifier. We should remove language that suggests it is only for convenience.

#191 Include CLOSE-PORT ?

Should we include close-port, as a generic version of close-input-port and close-output-port?

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,no

Rationale: It's useful and general, but I'm not attached to it.

#188 Clarify wording of and and or definitions

The definitions of and and or may be slightly confusing. Reword them to be more clear. One possible hiccup is that the current language permits the return of different false values, while a clearer wording may preclude this.

R6RS provides a clearer definition that does not provide wiggle room for multiple false values. Should we use that?

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: We should clarify this wording specifically to eliminate this ambiguity about false values.

#187 Clarify duplicate bindings in let*

The language of the standard could clarify that duplicate bindings are permitted in the clauses of a let*.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: Arguably this is not necessary, but it does help people who are trying to read the standard. This is an issue that has cropped up from time to time so maybe it makes sense to include language about it in the standard, even at the expense of a bit of verbosity.

#215 initial value argument to make-blob

make-blob should either have an initial value argument, or rationale why it is inconsistent with make-vector and make-string.

Vote yes for an initial value argument.

  • Options: yes, no, undecided
  • Default: no
  • Preferences: yes,undecided,no

Rationale: I assume that this will be an optional argument, so, yes.

#216 Controlling use of reader labels on output

There are cases when one does not want to output reader labels for shared structure, such as when you don't care (and want the output to be more legible), or when you know that the time or space requirements to construct the table will be too large.

We could offer a parameter to control this, or have a separate procedure (e.g. write/simple) which doesn't use the reader labels.

Finer grained control may also let use specify a predicate for which values are interesting (e.g. never use labels for strings), or only use labels for cycles, etc.

  • Options: parameter, write/simple, none, undecided
  • Default: none
  • Preferences: undecided,none,parameter,write/simple

Rationale: Is this is common use? What would this look like? I want more discussion on this, but otherwise, I am not sure it makes sense, so I'm going with none after undecided.