wiki:WG1BallotSnellPym

Version 3 (modified by alaric, 7 years ago) (diff)

Updated my ballot

WG1 New Ballot Items

Notes about results:

  • 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 may write in your own option if you announce it to the list first
  • everything but the preferences line is free-form, and may be used for a rationale
  • 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 by leaving the preferences blank
  • items up for final vote will be marked as such (none are final now)

WG1 - Modules

2 Module System

As per the charter, we need a module system proposal which allows sharing of code between implementations.

This is one issue where we can't default to the R5RS, since it has no module system. If we can't come to consensus, we will have to take the R6RS module system as-is.

WG1 - Core

50 Byte-Vectors

Several SRFIs, R6RS, and most Scheme implementations support some sort of uniform packed integer vectors. In particular, these are necessary for efficient binary I/O, and for memory mapping, so WG2 will certainly want them.

Do we provide a syntax and basic API for these in WG1?

  • Proposals:
    • cowan: BlobAPI
    • snellpym: BlobsAndSRFI4SnellPym
  • Options: cowan, snellpym, wg2, none, undecided
  • Preferences: snellpym, cowan, wg2, none

69 Parameters

Most Scheme implementations provide some form of dynamic bindings such as those provided by SRFI-39 parameters.

Unusually, I prefer the Cowan proposal over my own, as I actually like immutability. However, many people don't, and my proposal is to ensure that (given the concession of mutability), the interaction between threads is handled in a way that lets developers make useful assumptions.

WG1 - Exceptions

18 Exception System

R6RS provided a detailed exception system with support for raising and catching exceptions, using a hierarchy of exception types.

Do we use this, or parts of it, or a new exception system?


WG1 Controversial Ballot Items

WG1 - Core

40 SRFI vs. R6RS precedence

Given equal technical merit and compatible extensibility for WG2, should WG1 prefer SRFIs or standardized behaviors from R6RS when faced with the choice. For example, a version of syntax-violation vs. syntax-error.

  • Options: srfi,r6rs,undecided
  • Preferences: srfi

32 user-define types

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

51 support for cyclic structures in primitives

list?, length, equal? and other fundamental primitives may diverge when given cyclic data. In the former two cases, avoiding this is simple and not inefficient, and the equivalents are already provided in SRFI-1. In the latter case a proposal was made and rejected on the R6RS list.

Do we want to specify the behavior when these primitives encounter cyclic data?

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

58 exact-integer-sqrt

Should WG1 include exact-integer-sqrt from R6RS? It allows square root operations in Schemes that don't provide inexact arithmetic, and has different semantics from sqrt, as it rounds its argument down to the nearest exact square.

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

61 finite? nan?

Shall we add these numeric predicates?

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

63 call/cc short name

Should we allow call/cc as an equivalent to call-with-current-continuation?

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

53 Implicit BEGIN to implicit LET-NIL

In general, in places where an implict BEGIN occurs, it is possible to change this to an implicit LET-NIL and remain backwards compatible. Should we do this?

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

WG1 - I/O

52 read/write cyclic data

SRFI-38 standardizes the #0=(1 . #0#) shared structure notation for read/write. In the case of write, this can be expensive to compute, but otherwise the common case of the repl printing a cyclic structure results in an infinite loop.

Do we want to add support for this, as an option or separate set of procedures?

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

Much as it pains me to require more complexity from WG1 implementations, I feel that there is a security issue here that primitives should not diverge on cyclic structures, as it would make it all too easy to introduce unexpected denial of service opportunities.

WG1 - Libraries

36 hash-tables

R6RS and SRFI-69 both provide hash-table interfaces. Do we provide either of these, or try to provide some primitives on which efficient hash-tables can be implemented?

  • Options: srfi-69,r6rs,no,module,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: module,no,srfi-69

I like providing primitives, but wouldn't want to force hash tables to be available to the user in WG1 implementations; they can ask for SRFI-69 if they want it.

WG1 - Macros

6 syntax-rules _ patterns

R6RS adds _ as a wild-card pattern, breaking some existing R5RS macros. Do we add the _ wildcard, or leave it as a normal identifier as in R5RS?

Yes to add, no for R5RS.

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

8 SRFI-46 ellipse specifier in syntax-rules

As an alternative to #7, SRFI-46 proposed allowing an optional ellipse specified as an identifier before the literals list in syntax-rules:

(syntax-rules ::: ()

<ellipse now represented as ::: instead of ...>)

Do we allow this?

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

9 tail patterns in syntax-rules

SRFI-46 and R6RS both allow a fixed number of tail patterns following an ellipsis in a syntax-rules pattern:

(P1 ... Pk Pe <ellipsis> Pm+1 ... Pn)

R6RS further allows dotted tail patterns

(P1 ... Pk Pe <ellipsis> Pm+1 ... Pn . Px)

where Px only matches a dotted list.

Do we allow either or both of these extensions?

  • Options: tail,dotted-tail,both,no,module,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: undecided

WG1 - Numerics

21 limited type arithmetic

R6RS provides libraries for limited type arithmetic on fixnums only and flonums only. Do we want these?

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

22 mantissa widths

R6RS introduced the concept of mantissa widths as an alternative to the R5RS #s in numbers. Do we want either or both of these?

  • Options: r5rs,r6rs,both,no,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: undecided

WG1 - Reader Syntax

11 case-sensitivity

Does the reader fold case by default, and if so how?

Yes to fold-case (R5RS) no to preserve case (R6RS), additional votes to come later from specific proposals.

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

Working Group 1

1 Which VCS do we use?

There is the question of the right VCS to use. I prefer Monotone. Currently we are having an email vote on the list. I have entered this ticket to play with the Trac ticketing system. We can finalize the ticket once we have chosen a VCS.

  • Options: bzr,darcs,git,hg,monotone,svn,undecided
  • Preferences: git,hg,svn

WG1 Old Items

WG1 - Core

37 transcript-on and transcript-off

These were relegated to a compatibility library in R6RS. Do we want to keep them, drop them, or move them to a library?

Yes means to keep them in the core, as in R5RS, and no means to remove them entirely.

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

38 letrec*

R6RS added letrec* and defined the semantics of internal define to be equivalent. Do we want to add this?

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

I don't see letrec* as being a large burden to implementors, and having it available to define internal define in terms of tidies up a few loose ends. However, I'm all for putting it in a module as it's a "library" tool that could be implemented on top of the core as a macro.

41 Should we adopt the SRFI-1 extension to MAP and FOR-EACH?

This extension allows the list arguments to be of unequal length, and stops the procedure whenever any of them run out. R5RS says the lists must be of the same length, R6RS says they should be.

Yes to allow unequal length.

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

Shouldn't be a large burden, and removes a 'hole' in the semantics of map/for-each.

42 Should we adopt the SRFI-1 extension to ASSOC and MEMBER?

This extension accepts a third argument, the equality predicate to be used. Alternatively we could use the R6RS predicates ASSP and MEMP.

  • Options: srfi-1,r6rs,no,module,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: srfi-1,r6rs

The SRFI-1 form just strikes me as neater.

33 dynamic-wind

New to R5RS, do we reaffirm the sometimes debated dynamic-wind?

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

It's essential for maintaining certain kinds of invariants in the presence of continuation trickery, even though people misunderstand it sometimes.

34 multiple values

New to R5RS, do we reaffirm multiple values, specifically the procedures call-with-values and values?

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

54 optional arguments

Scheme's primitive mechanism of improper lambda-lists allows for optional arguments, but only with extra machinery. CL, DSSSL, and some Schemes provide a special word such as #!optional in lambda-lists, showing that the arguments which follow are optional and may have default values. SRFI-89 provides both optional and keyword arguments via lambda* and define* and without introducing #!foo special tokens.

Note the original ticket description mentions case-lambda, but this is easily provided as a separate module, and will be a separate item.

  • Options: dsssl,srfi-89,no,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: undecided

57 Simple randomness

Student programs often want a small amount of randomness, not necessarily of very high quality. Shall we provide a simple interface to a random variables in WG1 Scheme?

  • Options: srfi-27,no,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: no

59 current-error-port

Pretty much all Schemes except embedded ones provide a notion of current error distinct from current output. Should this be exposed as a Scheme output port?

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

I vote for 'module' since it's not something that EVERY implementation will have, but many will.

60 Simple file operations

Should WG1 provide a module equivalent to the (rnrs files) module? This provides delete-file and file-exists?, which are pretty much necessities for any file-driven programming.

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

64 Consistency in sequence procedures

Should we add the 10 procedures mentioned at CompleteSequenceCowan in order to make the Scheme sequence types consistent? They are `make-list copy-list list-set! string-map string-for-each string->vector copy-vector vector-map vector-for-each vector->string`, all with the obvious interface and semantics.

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

Consistent sequence types give me a warm feeling of symmetry.

65 Precision indicators

R5RS requires that Scheme support five indicators for the precision of floating-point values, not only the default e but also s, f, d, and l. Only a few Schemes actually support more than one precision, so this is mostly noise. Shall we make it an optional feature?

  • Options: required,optional,no,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: optional,no

66 Add EXACT-INTEGER?

Should we add an EXACT-INTEGER? predicate? Currently, to determine whether a number is both an integer and exact, we must test for both, which requires some hackery or poor pattern matching to optimize in existing Scheme implementations.

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

44 Testing function arity

We would like a standard for checking function arity. SRFI-102 proposes a way to check function arity:

  • Options: srfi-102,no,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: undecided

WG1 - Exceptions

17 error

Do we support the near ubiquitous SRFI-23 error procedure, and if so should it use the SRFI-23 signature, R6RS, or type-dispatch on the first argument to allow both?

  • Options: srfi-23,r6rs,both,no,module,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: srfi-23

WG1 - I/O

30 string ports

Do we support string ports, as implemented by SRFI-6 or as by R6RS?

  • Options: srfi-6,r6rs,no,module,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: no

Implementations can provide SRFI-6 through the usual mechanisms, rather than it being put into WG1

WG1 - Macros

7 (... ...) ellipse escaping in syntax patterns

A popular extension, formalized in the R6RS, is to allow "(... <templ>)" in a syntax-rules template to be an escape for "<templ>". Do we use this, and if so what does (... <t1> <t2>) mean?

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

39 syntax-error

Should we have syntax-error parallel to SRFI-23 error? This is evoked when macros are expanded.

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

I think it's good to distinguish a syntax error from a coding error in the macro itself, which should call error.

5 syntax-rules

Do we keep syntax-rules in the core, relegate it to a standard module, or leave it out entirely (possibly letting WG2 specify it).

Yes to keep in core, no to remove from Scheme entirely.

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

10 identifier syntax

R6RS introduced identifier syntax as a way to expand identifiers in non-macro positions.

Orthogonal to the overall macro system and what types of expanders are provided, do we provide a means to specify identifier syntax?

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

47 internal define-syntax

R6RS extends define-syntax to be allowed in local lexical contexts. Do we allow this as well?

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

WG1 - Numerics

20 inexact infinities

R6RS provides support for inexact infinities and NaN objects. Do we keep these, and if so do we use the same literal syntax and arithmetic as in R6RS?

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

WG1 - Reader Syntax

15 #\foo character names

R6RS greatly extends the list of character names, as well as allowing #\xNN numeric escapes for characters. Do we allow any or all of these names?

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

13 [brackets] as (parens)

R6RS allows [] brackets as identical to parenthesis, with the condition that they must balance. Do we accept this extension, propose some other use for brackets, or leave them unspecified?

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

14 alternate comment syntax

R6RS provides support for #; nested sexp comments, and #| ... |# nested block comments. Do we include either or both of these?

  • Options: sexp,block,both,no,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: both

16 symbol escapes

R6RS provides character escapes in symbols of the form \xnnnn;, where nnnn is 1-5 hex digits. Do we accept this extension? Do we also allow |...| to escape a whole symbol or a part of one?

  • Options: numeric,quoted,both,no,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: both

I think that since string->symbol takes any string, any symbol should be representable in sexprs.

67 string escapes

R6RS provides character escapes in symbols of the form \xnnnn;, where nnnn is 1-5 hex digits, as well as \n, \t etc. C-like escapes for common control characters. Do we accept either or both of these extensions?

  • Options: numeric,mnemonic,both,no,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: both, numeric

The numeric escapes are very useful (for writing non-ascii literals in ascii sources, for a start); the mnemonics are cheap to implement and are useful.

WG1 - Strings and Chars

24 char and string folding

R6RS provided operations to alter the case of strings and characters (upcase, downcase, titlecase and foldcase) using locale-independent Unicode mappings. Do we provide equivalent mappings?

  • Options: strings,chars,both,no,module,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: no,module,wg2

Keep explicit dependencies on supporting the entire Unicode stack out of WG1, IMHO

26 string normalization

R6RS provides procedures to explicitly convert strings back and forth between the four Unicode normalization forms. Do we provide any sort of string normalization?

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

Keep explicit dependencies on supporting the entire Unicode stack out of WG1, IMHO

27 string-ref/set! access time

R6RS suggests string-ref and string-set! work in O(1) time, implying strings are implemented as character arrays. Do we reaffirm this?

Yes for required constant time.

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

23 character set

R5RS said almost nothing about character sets. R6RS specified full Unicode. Do we specify a character set, or limit the options in any way?

  • Proposals:
  • Options: cowan,r5rs,wg2,undecided
  • Preferences: cowan,r5rs

John Cowan knows his Unicode.