[gambit-list] Tangerine Edition penultimate report: how I voted, how you're voting

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Wed Jan 16 19:06:53 EST 2019


Sorry, left out the voting link this time:  it's
http://tinyurl.com/tangerine-ballot for the vote, and
http://tinyurl.com/orange-straw-poll for the Orange Edition straw poll
(guidance to the editor on what should appear in the next poll).

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 9:27 AM John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

> Well, there are two weeks to go on the Tangerine Edition ballot (cutoff is
> 12 noon UTC on Saturday, February 2).  So far, 18 people have voted,
> including me.  For the Red Edition we had 30 voters, so I hope some of you
> who haven't voted yet will take an interest and give us your views.
> Remember that you don't have to vote on all issues: choosing "No vote" is
> equivalent to abstaining, which does not affect the outcome, as votes are
> decided by a majority of the votes cast.
>
> As in the Red Edition, the choice of string library (issue #1) has been
> the most controversial.  There was no majority vote cast in the Red
> Edition, so the issue is being reballoted.  Currently, the index-based SRFI
> 152, which is meant to be a simple basic string library, holds a majority
> position, but only by a single vote.  There is a strong minority for the
> original SRFI 13, which is a superset (with a few deviations) of 152.  SRFI
> 130, which is cursor-based, has only a single vote.  Three write-in votes
> were cast for SRFI 140, which I excluded from Tangerine because it provides
> adjustable-length strings.  These, like all other features that can't be
> implemented (at least minimally) on top of R7RS-small, have been postponed
> to the Green Edition.  I voted for SRFI 152.
>
> Issue #4, supplementing the Red Edition's SRFI 127 generators with their
> dual, accumulators, is substantially beating the alternatives of status quo
> and no library.  Issue #6 is about bitwise operations on integers, and the
> comprehensive SRFI 151 is dominating the R6RS alternative.  The same thing
> is happening with fixnums (issue #7) and flonums (issue #8), where SRFIs
> 143 and 144, both supersets of R6RS, are getting more support than the R6RS
> alternatives. SRFI 160 is a superset of SRFI 4 that provides homogeneous
> vectors (issue #10), and it too is winning, though by a lesser margin.
> Surprising to me is that for the combinator-based formatting library (issue
> #11), the combinator-based SRFI 159 is in a majority position over SRFI 48,
> the traditional template-based (as in Common Lisp) alternative.
> Essentially all the remaining issues are yes/no/abstain, and yes is
> dominant all down the line, though a little less so for ratios (issue #13)
> and exact complex numbers (issue #16).  I voted with the majority for all
> of these except exact complex numbers.
>
> So what is happening is that people are voting for more rather than less,
> as with the Red Edition.  This encourages me that I'm going in a sensible
> direction with the large language.
>
> --
> John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> It was dreary and wearisome.  Cold clammy winter still held sway in this
> forsaken country.  The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
> greasy surfaces of the sullen waters.  Dead grasses and rotting reeds
> loomed
> up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
>         --LOTR, "The Passage of the Marshes"
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.iro.umontreal.ca/pipermail/gambit-list/attachments/20190116/328e6426/attachment.html>


More information about the Gambit-list mailing list