[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Update, near finalization
| Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:23:05 -0700
| From: Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
| 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.
SRFI-47 (which is upward compatible with SRFI-63) is implemented in
SCM, Guile, and SLIB. So renamed or not, SRFI-63 would lack
interoperability with at least one existing, finalized SRFI.
| ... What is the usage *today*?
SCM, Guile, and any Scheme using SLIB have Bawden arrays. Every
recent Linux distribution includes Guile, so that should count for a
But this pissing contest should be largely irrelevant to R6RS --
SRFI-63 is more capable (uniform arrays), better integrated with R5RS
(specifying vector, string, and EQUAL? behavior), compatible with
SRFI-58 array syntax, and better designed than SRFI-25.