[R6RS] action items from today's call
sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
Thu Dec 14 14:15:09 EST 2006
dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:
> ticket 80: fix i/o interface inconsistencies
> - possibile response:
> - the set of procedures provided is not inconsistent: we have
> call-with-string-output-port and call-with-bytes-output-port
> because each returns a useful value (the string or bytes object);
> for the others mentioned in the comment's first two bullet points,
> call-with-port suffices; the simple-io is intended to be
> compatible with R5RS and, well, simpler.
> - where the procedures are mentioned is an editorial decision;
> thanks for the suggestions
That's essentially my position. See:
> - orthogonal naming issue:
> - should we rename
> call-with-string-output-port => call-with-output-string
> call-with-bytes-output-port => call-with-output-bytes
> for consistency with the simple-i/o
> call-with-input-file and call-with-output-file?
> ticket 129: allow (nongenerative #t) perhaps with (nongenerative) syntax
> - straw poll of Will, Kent, Anton yielded 3 in favor after Matthew
> had withdrawn from call
> - Mike is also in favor
> - issue: should syntax be (nongenerative #t) or (nongenerative)?
I don't really care on this point by itself. But ...
> - if (nongenerative #t) should we allow (nongenerative #f)?
No. This would imply that I prefer (nongenerative)
> - if (nongenerative) should we change (opaque #t) to (opaque) and
> (sealed #t) to (sealed)?
No. We decided to make the reverse change sometime during the
drafting of SRFI 76.
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
More information about the R6RS