Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:

> Exactly what does that interoperability imply, though? That all
> bindings from IEEE be in the default environment, without any
> importing?

Plainly not.  I have taken it to mean that names defined in the IEEE
standard must still be defined in the report.

On reflection, though, the term "features" in the charter is ambiguous.
Does it mean facilities (like that of providing an exact number given a
number), or does it mean their names?  The exact wording is:

    When deciding which features to include in the language, working
    group 1 should consider all features provided by R5RS Scheme, and
    all criticisms of those features. Existing features of IEEE Scheme
    may be removed only if a strong case can be made that they are
    fundamentally flawed. Insofar as practical, the language should be
    backwards compatible with the IEEE standard, the R5RS standard, and an
    appropriate subset of the R6RS standard.

> if we allow some imports, surely an import with renaming is OK, or an
> import of an IEEE comparability library that includes them all?

Ticket #329 filed for (scheme ieee), #330 filed for (scheme r5rs), and
#331 file for (scheme r6rs base).  All are optional, of course.

--
John Cowan   cowan@ccil.org
    "Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have
        to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done."
    "Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do
        anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery."

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