On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 09:34:59AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> It's a Google Group, so you can sign up at
> <https://groups.google.com/group/scheme-reports-wg2>.

This just shows the archive.  After enabling JavaScript, there's some
more stuff but no sign-up instructions.

> > I agree, this situation sucks and I'm hoping to eventually fix this by
> > integrating bignum support in core.  However, note that this is different
> > from what I'm suggesting: I'm not saying the complete numeric tower
> > should be an optional add-on, but that it should only be required by
> > specific parts of WG2.  See it as an additional constraint on some
> > parts of WG2, which only apply *when you want to support those parts*.
>
> Understood.  It's perfectly fine to vote no, in that case.

Excellent.

> However, the set API as well as the new hash-table API to replace SRFI
> 69 (still in progress) depends on comparators, and therefore I intend to
> propose comparators as a mandatory part of R7RS-large, so that people can
> just assume (as they can with the existing R7RS-small types) that they
> are available.

If an implementation doesn't support hash tables, it might not need
comparators either.  This is the same objection as I have with requiring
the full numeric tower.

> Being able to do this is part of the point of having a
> -large *standard* as opposed to just writing a lot of SRFIs.

I don't see why this has to be.  It will just exclude small
specialised implementations which would still like to support
a standardised library if it fits its intended use cases.
For example, Chibi Scheme might decide to ship a few WG2 modules,
but you can compile it without bignum support.  Does that mean
it isn't WG2-compatible?

Cheers,
Peter
--
http://www.more-magic.net

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