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

Re: Update, near finalization

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 63 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 63 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

 | Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:21:31 -0700
 | From: Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 | Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
 | > I claim that SRFI-25 and SRFI-63 can coexist -- not that they
 | > interoperate!
 | Having two different array implementations, with the same
 | functionality, in the same Scheme implementation, using overlapping
 | but inconsistent function names is out of the question.
 | I really don't want to add a "this array was allocated using
 | srfi-63 make-array" bit to my arrays.  That's utterly gross.  And
 | of course it doesn't work to have vectors be both SRFI-25 and
 | SRFI-63 arrays.

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.

[ more reiteration of outrage elided ]

 | > Bawden arrays predate SRFI-25 by a decade.  SRFI-25 should have
 | > chosen other names.
 | Was that issue brought up during the discussion of SRFI-25?

Yes it was.  It was the SRFI-25 authors who decided to be
incompatible.  See

 | There is a pragmatic issue: How much currently-used code uses
 | Bawden's/SLIB's arrays vs how much uses SRFI-25's.  That's hard to
 | tell, but perhaps there is some data or indicators.  Without that,
 | the default for a SRFI should be that compatibility with a past
 | SRFI (and one supported by multiple active/popular Scheme
 | implementations) should weigh more than conflicting non-SRFI APIs.

SLIB certainly had more users when SRFI-25 was released.  Should
SRFI-63 now be penalized for the SRFI-25 authors' rudeness?

 |  From the SRFI document:
 |    To my knowledge, shared arrays were original to Alan Bawden in his
 |    "array.scm".
 | I doubt it, unless you're restricting yourself to Scheme.
 | Certainly the concept predates 1993 by far.  There are precursurs
 | in APL and Fortran going back to the 60-ies.  I had it in my Q
 | language from the 80-ies/early 90-ies.  (The latest "modify" dates
 | on Q are 1994, but most of the work came before that.)

The specification of any linear index mapping by means of a procedure
is a clever synthesis which I doubt predates the 1980s.  I will reword
the paragraph to emphasize the arbitrary linear mapping aspect.

I am unfamiliar with Q; please send a citation if you think it should
be cited.