Vote on the Yellow Edition

39 views
Skip to first unread message

co...@ccil.org

unread,
Nov 13, 2021, 6:56:56 PM11/13/21
to
Time to vote on the Yellow Edition of R7RS-large. This is concerned with both macro systems and particular macros. Voting on it is open until the end of January. Please vote!

You can reach the voting form at <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1FEovNGbLYWz2yd6-UrbSCjFwAQ6fynrStLQyyC6YYDE/edit>. You don't need a Google account. Let me know at <co...@ccil.org> if anything goes wrong.

Here are the detailed instructions for the Yellow Edition ballot:

This is a ballot to decide which SRFIs are to be included in the Tangerine Yellow (macro systems and macros) Edition of R7RS-large. This is the third of about 12 editions, so only certain topics are being voted on now. If you are seeing this ballot, you are a member of Working Group 2 provided you actually vote. However, if you have not voted on a Scheme ballot or ratification before, please send an email to scheme-re...@groups.google.com giving your name and a short explanation of your interest in Scheme.

Choose "No vote" if you wish to abstain, which means that your vote on this question will not be counted. Note that if one person votes for alternative A, and two people for alternative B, and everyone else abstains, alternative B wins. That is because we are going by a majority of the legal votes cast for each ballot question. If no alternative achieves a majority, the question will be re-balloted at a later date.

Otherwise, choose "None" if you wish not to include a library of the type described in R7RS-large, or choose one of the SRFIs or R6RS according to the choices given. You can also choose "Other" for a write-in vote.

There are also some yes/no questions on the ballot, for which the answers are "No vote", "No", "Yes", and "Other".

If you want to revote, just vote again using the same name. Only the last vote is counted. The ballot closes at the last moment of Monday, January 31, 2023, in any time zone, which is equivalent to noon February 1 UTC.

All ballots will be made public. If you object to using Google Forms (you do not need a Google account), post your ballot in an email to scheme-re...@groups.google.com. As an absolute fallback, send an email to co...@ccil.org and I will post your vote for you. Ballots posted to other fora will be used if I see them, but are not formally supported.

Chris Vine

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 4:08:15 PM11/14/21
to
On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:56:54 -0800 (PST)
"co...@ccil.org" <co...@ccil.org> wrote:
> Time to vote on the Yellow Edition of R7RS-large. This is concerned
> with both macro systems and particular macros. Voting on it is open
> until the end of January. Please vote!
>
> You can reach the voting form at
> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1FEovNGbLYWz2yd6-UrbSCjFwAQ6fynrStLQyyC6YYDE/edit>.
> You don't need a Google account. Let me know at <co...@ccil.org> if
> anything goes wrong.

Am I right that there is no proposal for implicit renaming macros? (I
saw the reference to explicit renaming macros in the questions.) Given
that they are implemented in chicken and seem to work well, and are the
main competition to syntax-case, that seems disappointing.

johnw...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 10:23:39 PM11/14/21
to
On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-5, Chris Vine wrote:

> Am I right that there is no proposal for implicit renaming macros? (I
> saw the reference to explicit renaming macros in the questions.) Given
> that they are implemented in chicken and seem to work well, and are the
> main competition to syntax-case, that seems disappointing.

The only Schemes I know of that support implicit renaming are Chicken and Picrin. I don't think the Scheme community as a whole has enough experience with IR to judge its merits. The Chicken implementation of IR also takes O(n^2) time. So no, I don't think implicit renaming is the *main* competition to syntax-case.

The same applies to syntactic closures: they are available only in MIT, Chibi, and Picrin, although they have been around much longer.

See <https://docs.scheme.org/surveys/syntax-definitions> for more details on who supports what.

Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 2:05:12 AM11/15/21
to
If you need "implicit renaming" use syntax-case. It's faster, more expressive, and safer to use than Chicken's IR macros. From a user's point of view, I can't see a reason not to choose syntax-case when compared to Chicken's IR.

ER macros don't suffer from the quadratic complexity of IR but suffer from inconvenience (and lack of expressivity, etc.), so are also not a substitute for syntax-case.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages