[R6RS] Ticket Status as of svn repository revision 1196:

[William D Clinger]

Mike, responding to Kent:

> That is beside the point of Jaffer's comment.  See the response
> draft.  Do you disagree with the response?

I don't know whether I disagree with the response,
because I don't even understand it.  Details:

    Nongenerative UIDs are in a sense very unmodular: The addition of a
    new nongenerative record-type definition can cause a program that
    worked without it to break, if the UIDs of the record-type definitions
    match.

So far, so good.

    Hence, a namespace for the UIDs is needed that avoids
    collisions as much as possible.

Okay.

    Allowing #f would make it much more
    likely that such collisions occur.

I don't follow that at all.  It seems to me that it would
depend upon the semantics attached to #f as a UID.  The
proposal goes on to suggest one particular semantics for
which collisions would be more likely to occur, but I see
that as a defect of that particular semantics, not as a
defect of the comment's main proposal (to allow #f).

    Except for the #f part, the proposal of the formal comment would also
    minimize collisions.

I don't follow that at all.  The comment makes only two
proposals, both of which appear to have been rejected by
the preceding sentences of the response.

    Consequently, we will adopt this part of the
    formal comment.

I have no idea what "this part of the formal comment"
might mean.

Will