[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

R^5RS Proposal(s)


In order to do portable application hackery, I have made a proposals
for portable representation (bit) bashing, random-device (file,
memory-mapped ports) i/o and static heap cleanup.  {I.e. "abstract
stores" and register-for-finalization}.

These are things that [1] cannot currently be implemented in standard
Scheme whish is sealed off and [2] are not (IMHO) language issues.
While I see the need for these facilities (and a portable foreign
function interface!), I don't think that these proposals should
necessarily be in R^5RS.

There are a number of problems where people want portable solutions
now but it would be a bad idea to commit to as a Language
Standard--particularly programming environment issues.  Right now
there is *no other place* to propose such facilities.  Everything
shows up in proposals to R^nRS.


I would like to propose a Trial Use Standard mechanism.  The basic
idea is put up a target proposal, allow discussion, come up with a
concrete proposal in a standard format which is then put in the Scheme
Repository and published.  If "the idea catches on" then it gets a
place in a R^nRS appendix, otherwise it falls into disuse or gets
flushed for something better.

By "published" I mean via rrrs-authors, comp.lang.scheme, and--if
noteworthy--in Lisp Pointers.  By "idea catches on" I mean implemented
in and used in some of the more `heavy duty' (i.e. compiled)
environments and found to be useful by rrrs-authors.


I currently see R^5RS split into Core Language and Appendix sections.
Should there additionally be a Trial Use Appendix or should this be a
separate process?


Personaly I prefer [1] that there be *a* process, and [2] that it be

What thinkist thou?

-Ken				kend@data.rain.com
[I don't have ftp access, but volunteer to be a reviewer or whatever]