[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Vector size in the read syntax

[Aubrey Jaffer]

 | From: William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu>
 | Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:51:45 -0400
 | 
 | I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme
 | community.  I am not speaking for the R6RS editors, and
 | this message should not be confused with the editors'
 | eventual formal response.
 | 
 | To expand on current practice, I tested the proposed
 | notation in several systems I have handy:
 | 
 |                         '#4(0 1 2 3)    '#4(0 1)
 | 
 | Bigloo 2.7a             error           error
 | Petite Chez 7.0a        #4(0 1 2 3)     #4(0 1 1 1)
 | Chicken 2,3             error           error
 | Gambit-C v4.0b20        error           error
 | Larceny v0.92b          error           error
 | MIT Scheme 7.7.90.+     error           error
 | MzScheme v352           #4(0 1 2 3)     #4(0 1 1 1)
 | Scheme 48 v1.3          error           error

SCM 5e3			#(0 1 2 3)	#(0 1)
Guile 1.6.7		error		error

 | The few systems that allow the proposed syntax also use
 | it (by default) when writing vectors, which has been a
 | barrier to portability.  There are two obvious ways to
 | fix this non-portability: require the implementations
 | that are using the syntax to stop using it (as was done
 | by the current draft), or require all implementations
 | to support it (as the comment proposes).

None responded to my critique of "Vector size in the read syntax".
Must I submit an anti-proposal to advocate its rejection?