[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: clarify the semantics of the dynamic features

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Richard Kelsey <kelsey@x> wrote:
>   Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:24:36 -0700
>   From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
>   We do need to be careful here, and the WG has not yet had
>   time to fully review the non-call/cc-based dynamic-binding
>   research pointed out by Oleg.
>   Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:35 -0700
>   From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
>   The definition of eqv? is still under debate, but if the
>   end result is incompatible with the formal semantics
>   we will definitely update it.
> I am confused about the status of R7R draft 6.  I had assumed that it
> was near completion and was only commenting on the text itself, not
> on which features were included or what their semantics should be.
> Indeed, Will Clinger just posted a message from the steering committee
> saying:
>  We plan to call for a vote on the proposed specification sometime
>  after the comment period has closed. In a few weeks, we'll send
>  instructions on how to sign up for that advisory vote.
> On the other hand, WG1 hasn't made up its mind on how call/cc should
> work or how eqv? compares procedures.  There isn't much point in trying
> to get the text right when the semantics are still up for grabs.
> The steering committee and WG1 need to get on the same page.

Call/cc is absolutely not changing.  During the formal
comments period we were made aware of some issues
in parameterize that could result from future features
added to the language, and it would be useful, but not
necessary, to see if there is anything we can and should
do to future-proof the current specification.  My personal
opinion is that there is nothing we even need to say,
and even if there were it's too late to add, but we do
need to vote on this.

Almost all of the currently open issues came during
the formal comments period, many during the past
week as people rushed to meet the deadline.  We
will have another ballot addressing the issues from
the formal comments and provide another draft for
final review.  This is what people will be voting on.

I assure you the SC and WG are very much on the
same page.  I'm not sure what page you are on if
you expected a finalized draft even before the result
of any formal comments, but I want more than
anything the best possible standard and fully intend
to act on all feedback provided.  I think we will still
undergo far fewer changes than R6RS did during
their formal comment period.

Note the only thing coming in a few weeks is instructions
on signing up.  The timing for the actual vote is not
scheduled yet.


Scheme-reports mailing list