From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=l/12=5G=lassi.io=lassi@sourceware.org>
Received: from relay10.mail.gandi.net (relay10.mail.gandi.net [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc4:8::230])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB83D385842E
	for <kawa@sourceware.org>; Mon,  9 Jan 2023 10:51:31 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org BB83D385842E
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lassi.io
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lassi.io
Received: (Authenticated sender: lassi@lassi.io)
	by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8E2C240015;
	Mon,  9 Jan 2023 10:51:28 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <33b5d947-f54a-3128-8d1e-e7ca85a75d3c@lassi.io>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 12:51:27 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Subject: Re: Time for a new release? 3.1.2?
Content-Language: en-US
To: Arvydas Silanskas <nma.arvydas.silanskas@gmail.com>
Cc: Sascha Ziemann <ceving@gmail.com>, kawa mailing list <kawa@sourceware.org>
References: <CABgWrqpX6g_iRPj0MOeX6cO4s0j_J6LEiHtedd2WDJwonkimcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <0aee6f41-9f36-e9ef-6761-e8d81a3b5f5f@bothner.com>
 <CAPh7weCYhajo9239=A4XsSdpJ+XPwkpFPJujhZRPPVH9atNCUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPh7weDFkf=NwWxu-zLGgQPwZk5Hxsjsv4DhqL7QBRAKb8TKHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPh7weBQ-cw0oJKTSVd_MLQMag8WeT5gzABv+Aoz8M97-spRuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMHuZZ1V=irui7k8BGgX2s+wULtKAMX1dKpQuwiA+TtennSeYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPh7weCYBBZhC4nX+vbNJJrQrA4DbBo8LRvHHOVupyxWDxENNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <a0d4768d-db63-f9b5-d3f4-bfb54c870c6e@bothner.com>
 <CAGUt3y7RA17OPXdOO8YCJH1NSxKzNM5exnMZXx7kwafeafTmgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a55ab139-ce90-6e00-627f-96393ff02d12@lassi.io>
 <CAPh7weAPj-zfSRgYLf4dcMAAGekpu8kUoBqbZATpuhXF+cz9VA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lassi Kortela <lassi@lassi.io>
In-Reply-To: <CAPh7weAPj-zfSRgYLf4dcMAAGekpu8kUoBqbZATpuhXF+cz9VA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <kawa.sourceware.org>

> The way I understand the r7rs-large process, is that it tries to split 
> out low floor difficulty / portable concerns (eg., streams) from high 
> floor difficulty / not-portable concerns (syntax-case, etc), so that 
> implementations could choose to implement some but not all of it, to 
> extent that is feasible

Modularity is the only way forward for RnRS.

> (I wasn't there when it happened, but my 
> understanding of r6rs controversies was mostly to do with implementers 
> getting handed uncompromising burden of implementation requirements). 

The disagreements are about style as well as complexity.

> In that view, it seems sensible to me to have both specific procedures now 
> and plausibly generic procedures later. Also, specific procedures enable 
> more deterministic optimization opportunities. Number system is generic 
> in the standard, but we also have eg. srfi 143 providing non-generic 
> procedures with "allow more efficient implementations" stated as the 
> core reasoning.

Yes. R6RS also added fixnum procedures.

The existing specific procedures have to be kept for backward 
compatibility. Whether new ones should be added is another matter.