[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Update, near finalization
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
> Yes it was. It was the SRFI-25 authors who decided to be
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*?
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
Probably not appropriate. I was just using it as an indication to
suggest that arbitrary linear mappings predates 1993.