[R6RS] my notes on today's conference call (4 December 2006)

[William D Clinger]

Conference call December 4 2006 8:00am-10:00am
Present by 8:02am:
Kent, Will, Anton, Mike; Matthew (in China) joined later

0. finalize agenda (1 minute)

1. action items (1 minute)
   - split the report into base and libraries (Mike)
        in progress
   - email steering committee re: front page (Kent)
        done
   - insert readability and other guiding principles from
     status reports into draft R6RS (Mike)
        not done yet
   - update responses to script comments [106, 105, 106] (Anton)
     - based on Anton's email proposal w/preservation of
       command-line-arguments (possibly as command-line) and
       restriction that multiple definitions of an identifier
       are not allowed; see also 2006/11/27 minutes
     - move to "done, probably uncontroversial (critical/yellow)"
     - technical vote next Monday
        done
   - update responses to declaration comments [128, 64, 77, 60] (Will)
     - declarations are flushed along with claim re: providing way for
       programmers to say checks aren't desired, though mention likelihood
       that some implementations will provide a mechanism for doing so in
       "real world" appendix; safety guarantee holds
     - move to "done, probably uncontroversial (critical/yellow)"
     - technical vote next Monday
        done
   - update response to backslash-linefeed [9] (Matthew)
     - yes, change to \<intraline whitespace><linefeed><intraline whitespace>
     - also means flushing \<space> (can use %20;)
     - close (no need for another technical vote)
        unknown (Matthew not here)
   - update response to condition hierarchy [95] (Mike)
     - flush &defect
     - move to "done, probably uncontroversial (critical/yellow)"
     - close (no need for another technical vote)
        done
   - update response to script-body differences [39] (Anton)
     - reject
     - rationale in 2006/11/27 minutes
     - close (no need for another technical vote)
        done
   - close "Scheme should not be changed to be case sensitive [107] (Mike)
     - current response is okay
     - close (no need for another technical vote)
        done
   - update response to rationalize the various iteration procedures [78] (Anton)
     - flush hash-table-fold
     - add hash-table->vector
        not done yet
     - vector-for-each, vector-map (same interface as for-each and map)
     - call/cc can be used for premature termination
     - (vector-map p (hash-table->vector ht)) and
       (vector-for-each p (hash-table->vector ht)) can be recognized by
       optimizer if implementor feels optimization is useful
     - move to "done, probably uncontroversial (critical/yellow)"
     - technical vote next week
   - note: tickets 1-3 are test tickets and can be ignored
   - note: tickets 135 and up came in after 2006/11/15 and can be deferred

2. technical vote on done, probably uncontroversial (critical/yellow) tickets
   - ticket numbers: 9 17 38 39 51 63 64 65 70 77 78 79 83 91 96 97 104
     105 106 107 128 131 136
        9 closed already
        17 (4-0)
        38 (irrelevant because we voted to drop declarations from report)
        39 (removed from list by chair's decision)
        51 (deferred to Wednesday by chair)
        63 (3-0-1)
        64 (already voted)
        65 (rejecting formal comment; 4-0)
        70 (giving rationale; 2-0-2)
        77 (already voted)
        78 (not yet ready for vote)
        79 (rejecting formal comment; 4-0)
        83 (accepting technical content of current draft response; 4-0)
        91 (accepting formal comment; 4-0)
        96 (not yet ready for vote)
        97 (accepting gist of current draft response; add timeline; 4-0)
        104 (accepting formal comment; 4-0)
        105, 106 (deferred to Wednesday)
        107 (already voted to reject, 3-2)
        128 (already voted to accept)
        131 (rejecting formal comment; 4-0)
        136 (rejecting formal comment; 4-0)

3. straw poll on suggested response/action, but needs discussion (major/white) tickets (5 minutes)
   - ticket numbers: 69 71 75 84 86 111 113 114 117 130
     18 28 58 66 72 108 138
        discussion generally needed before straw polls, e.g.
        71: (accept proposal, allowing but not requiring optimization; 5-0)

4. Continued discussion of controversial issues (remaining time)
   - ground rules: prefer to debate concrete proposals
   - nomination for items to discuss first (some possibilties below, grouped)
   - #26: Map and for-each should work even if lists are of unequal length
     #25: "forall" and "exists" should use SRFI-1 equivalents
     #42: Requirement to detect circular lists
     #41: Plausible lists presentation defect
     #36: Ambiguous call/cc-behaviour of list operations
     #45: last-element behavior of for-each
     #48: Slight defect in plausible alist description
     #49: Higher-order procedures should not interfere with exceptions
     #87: Reduce over-specification as well as under-specification
     #130: Multiple versions of one library should be linkable
   - #52: Exact-Integer and Real (and Complex) are more useful
          distinctions than Exact and Inexact
     #40: Exactness is orthogonal to type
     #27: Some generic arithmetic procedures should be put in a library
     Proposal: flush exact-only, inexact-only, and fixnum (but not
               fx) libraries
        Amendment: keep the carry operations, in the fx library
        Amendment: move the bitwise operations from
            (r6rs arithmetic exact) to (r6rs bitwise), changing the
            exact- prefix to bitwise-
        Will will draft response
   - #61: Expansion process violates lexical scoping
     #62: Lexical scoping violation for internal define-syntax.
   - #84: Eliminate compound library names
   - #87: Reduce over-specification as well as under-specification
   - #89: Leave readers and writers out of the report
            Mike will write up a proposal to move their functions
            into ports.
   - #123: Replacing the import's "for" syntax with implicit phasing
     #92: Phase semantics
     #109: identifier-syntax is not a derived form
     #110: Remove double phase semantics
     #112: Lexical determination of phases
   - #117: Bodies should be more widely permitted
   - #126: local imports
            (technical vote: reject formal comment; 4-1)
   - #130: Multiple versions of one library should be linkable
            needs more thought

Action item:
    study ticket #88; discuss next time

5. adjourned about 10:02am