Vincent Manis scripsit:

> I have considerable reservations about making modules optional.

(I'm speaking for myself here, not reporting facts about what the
WG has done.)

There are two kinds of modules that make sense to me in WG1:  the
existing optionality in R5RS, and the question of external facilities
like file systems.

R5RS already has a lot of optional features, way beyond what is
explicitly marked "optional procedure".  For example, if you don't
have inexact numbers, the transcendental procedures are optional
(and indeed, don't make much sense).  I think not having inexact
numbers is reasonable in some circumstances, so a (r7rs inexact)
module would export sin, cos, tan, etc.

In addition, one of our charter requirements is to consider embedded
Schemes that don't have file systems or I/O streams.  Since these
features are already in R5RS, a Scheme without open-input-file can't
conform to R5RS.  By putting it in an optional module, though,
it *can* conform to WG1 Scheme.

> When I review the WG1 draft, one of my test cases will be `can I
> write a portable WG1 Scheme program to play blackjack, without needing
> peculiar circumlocutions'.

There surely won't be an appropriate GUI, since neither WG1 nor WG2 is
opening that can of long, intricate, wriggling worms.  It's not clear
whether WG1 will provide a random number source, or whether you'll have
to roll your own.  Otherwise I don't see a big problem.

--
Her he asked if O'Hare Doctor tidings sent from far     John Cowan
coast and she with grameful sigh him answered that      http://ccil.org/~cowan
O'Hare Doctor in heaven was. Sad was the man that word  cowan@ccil.org
to hear that him so heavied in bowels ruthful. All
she there told him, ruing death for friend so young,    James Joyce, Ulysses
algate sore unwilling God's rightwiseness to withsay.   "Oxen of the Sun"

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports