[R6RS] my notes on Monday's conference call (11 December 2006)

[William D Clinger]

Conference call December 11 2006 8:00am-9:00am
All present by 8:02am:
Kent, Matthew, Mike, Will, Anton

0. finalize agenda (1 minute)

2. closing tickets
   - when should a ticket be closed?
        when technical vote is settled
        agreement on formal response is separate

1. action items (1 minute)
   - look over numeric proposal (All)
        done; should be added to agenda
   - find and characterize (let () ---) examples (Will and Kent)
        done
   - split routine tickets into own files (Mike)
        done, except for ticket #74
   - comprehensive library phasing proposal, include characterization of
     the nature of allowable implementations (Matthew)
        not done
   - finish recording draft responses in svn tickets directory (All)
        done, except for technical issues
   - update #136 response to note that no top level is specified and that
     implementations who supply one (and probably most will) can provide
     a mechanism, possibly through imports, for addressing this comment (Kent)
        done
   - update response to rationalize the various iteration procedures [78] (Anton)
     - flush hash-table-fold
     - add hash-table->vector
     - 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
     - problem: how does hash-table->vector return both keys and values?
        done, but issue remains
   - follow up with steering committee re: front page (Kent)
        done, but no response from them yet
   - insert readability and other guiding principles from
     status reports into draft R6RS (Mike)
        done

*. numeric proposal
    exact-expt, exact-sqrt
        flush exact-expt
        rename exact-sqrt to exact-integer-sqrt
    technical vote: 5-0

3. should we flush compound library names?
   - ticket 84
   - proposal in response: keep compound names
   - may need better rationale
        the current draft response is fine
    vote to accept current draft response: 5-0

4. record-type-length procedure
   - ticket 72
        vote to accept current draft response: 5-0

5. syntax-rules issues
   - tickets 111: syntax-rules should evaluate to a transformer
   - tickets 113: fenders should be dropped from syntax-rules
   - tickets 114: identifier macros with syntax-rules
   - summary of proposed response: Agreed:
     - make syntax-rules evaluate to a transformer
     - drop fenders from syntax-rules
        technical vote to drop: 5-0
     - allow _ (unparenthesized) pattern for syntax-rules
     - add make-variable-transformer to base library
        Will objects to having any procedural macros in (r6rs base)
    would also require exporting syntax-rules for expand
        from (r6rs base) library

6. reduce overspecification as well as underspecification
   - ticket 87
   - need a concrete proposal
        tabled

7. revisiting list operation exception-raising requirements
   - tickets 26, 42, 41, 36, 48, 49
   - need a concrete proposal
        tabled
        ticket #49 not as problematic as the others
        technical vote on draft response to #49: 5-0
        Kent moved that we defer decisions on the others until
            after we have decided ticket #87, and that we defer
            decision on ticket #87 until after 15 December;
            should try to decide all by 15 January
        vote: 4-1 (Will voted no)

8. rationalize hash-table/vector/list procedures
   - ticket 78
   - concrete proposal pending
        deferred to Wednesday
        get rid of hash-table-values
        change hash-table->vector to return two vectors

9. enumerations
   - ticket 70
        technical point already decided
        Matthew said he was happy with the previous 2-0-2 outcome

10. expansion process
   - tickets 61, 62
        technical vote to accept the second of the current
            draft responses: 4-0-1 (Will abstained)

11. port/transcoder changes
   - ticket 88
        tabled pending written proposal
        straw poll
            Will favors ticket
            Kent sort of in favor, but wants to review details
            Matthew leaning in favor of ticket
            Mike opposes ticket
            Anton has no strong opinion
        Kent will draft a response

12. should bodies be more widely permitted?
   - ticket 117
   - leave begin alone but use "implicit let" (i.e., body) instead of
     "implicit begin" in case, cond, when, unless, etc.?
        technical vote: 0-5 (ticket #117's proposal is rejected)

14. multiple versions of one library
   - ticket 130
        straw poll: multiple versions are
            prohibited: Matthew, Mike
            allowed: 
            unspecified: Will (okay to prohibit), Anton (okay to allow)
            abstain: Kent
        straw poll on prohibit: 4-1 (Anton voted no)

13. library phasing
   - tickets 92, 109, 110, 112, 123
   - need concrete proposal
        done pending Matthew's drafting of response to formal comments

15. adjourned at 9:59am