Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Re: Update, near finalization Per Bothner (11 Apr 2005 06:23 UTC)
Update, near finalization David Van Horn (08 Apr 2005 16:19 UTC)
Re: Update, near finalization Per Bothner (08 Apr 2005 17:34 UTC)
Re: Update, near finalization Aubrey Jaffer (08 Apr 2005 20:16 UTC)
Re: Update, near finalization Per Bothner (08 Apr 2005 21:21 UTC)
Re: Update, near finalization Aubrey Jaffer (10 Apr 2005 21:09 UTC)
Re: Update, near finalization
Re: Update, near finalization Aubrey Jaffer (11 Apr 2005 16:38 UTC)
R6RS process Mitchell Wand (11 Apr 2005 17:16 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/