2012-10-01

R7RS 7th mini ballot result

I can't believe it's October. The time flies like an arrow, indeed (T_T)

Super postponed ballot result has been revealed. How long did they postpone? 3 weeks? I remember they said it's a small one so only a week. Liar!

Anyway, let me check what is the impact of it. I remember they were discussing how expt should behave.

#121
Now R7RS requires to signal error with the expression (expt 0 z) when z is negative. I believe this is incompatible change since I haven't seen any implementation raises error with this case. (Ypsilon, Sagittarius, Mosh, Gauche and Chibi(?!)). I agree with that the specification should not allow implementations to choose either unspecified value or error but hmm, is this nicer than R6RS?

#472
For me it's trivial, because I don't have intention to change current implementation of cond-expand, include and include-ci. But I think it's better if I can write like this;
(import (scheme base))
(cond-expand
  (sagittarius (import (srfi :1)))
  (else (import (srfi 1))))
;; bla bla
Does the result allow us to this? I actually couldn't understand properly:P

#473
I'm really disappointed with this decision. I think R6RS's toplevel restriction was too strict and it's better to be able to write import clause everywhere for small scripts. But they decided only beginning. It might be much better because now we can write the code above officially but hmm... No, we can't write the above code on toplevel according to the result. If we want to write the compatibility layer, we need to write it in a library then import it. Shit!!

#405
They have decided to keep compatibility with R6RS. (force 2) can raise error.

Only 4 items! But they needed 3 weeks?! I wish draft 7 will be released in this week...

BTW, why did I write this in English?

No comments:

Post a Comment