Update, near finalization
David Van Horn
(08 Apr 2005 16:35 UTC)
|
Re: Update, near finalization
Per Bothner
(08 Apr 2005 17:35 UTC)
|
Re: Update, near finalization
Aubrey Jaffer
(08 Apr 2005 20:16 UTC)
|
Re: Update, near finalization
Per Bothner
(08 Apr 2005 21:22 UTC)
|
Re: Update, near finalization
Aubrey Jaffer
(10 Apr 2005 21:09 UTC)
|
Re: Update, near finalization Per Bothner (11 Apr 2005 06:23 UTC)
|
Re: Update, near finalization
Aubrey Jaffer
(11 Apr 2005 16:38 UTC)
|
R6RS process
Mitchell Wand
(11 Apr 2005 17:17 UTC)
|
Re: Update, near finalization Per Bothner 11 Apr 2005 06:23 UTC
Aubrey Jaffer wrote: > My focus is to get multidimensional arrays incorporated into R6RS; and > SRFIs are allegedly the way to do that. R6RS will not incorporate > both SRFI-25 and SRFI-63; so concerns about their interoperations is > at most secondary for a standards track SRFI. Ok. But don't expect expect at least my Scheme implementation to put effort into implementing SRFI-63 - at least until we get a preview of R6RS. (I do find the lack of openness in the R6RS process rather unsuitable, FWIW.) > Yes it was. It was the SRFI-25 authors who decided to be > incompatible. See > http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-25/mail-archive/msg00090.html Hm. Ironically, it was I who pointed out the incompatibility. But nobody who was actually was using Bawden-arrays spoke up, it appears. And it wasn't just "SRFI-25 authors who decided to be incompatible" - others supported that decision. I was the only one (? - I haven't check the entire discussion acrhive) to argue for compatibility (as I do again), but using Bawden-arrays myself I could hardly object too strongly. However, in the current situation I myself have implemented SRFI-25 arrays, so I *am* in a position to object. > SLIB certainly had more users when SRFI-25 was released. Irrelevant at this point. What is the usage *today*? > Should > SRFI-63 now be penalized for the SRFI-25 authors' rudeness? So "rudeness" should be met with "rudeness" - not to mention exacerbating incompatibility headaches for "innocent bystanders?" > The specification of any linear index mapping by means of a procedure > is a clever synthesis which I doubt predates the 1980s. That may be the case. > I will reword > the paragraph to emphasize the arbitrary linear mapping aspect. I doubt arbitrary linear mapping are original with Bawden - but expressing them using a procedure might be. > I am unfamiliar with Q; please send a citation if you think it should > be cited. Probably not appropriate. I was just using it as an indication to suggest that arbitrary linear mappings predates 1993. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/