This was revisited in item #286 in the 5th ballot, and we voted to revert the previous decision.
The argument was that the distinction between real? and real-valued? is impossible to keep track of for a novice, which was a strong enough argument to allow the revote. -- Alex On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Mark H Weaver <[email protected]> wrote: > On the third ballot[1], #117 (Real numbers have imaginary part #e0) > resulted in a strong 6:2 win for "exact-only", and this decision was > implemented in R7RS-draft-3, and carried forward in drafts 4-6. > > However, this change was reverted in R7RS-draft-7. The ticket[2] states > "This decision was reversed because it created a silent incompatibility > with R5RS", but the compatibility issues were obviously known to the WG > at the time of the third ballot (three out of five rationales explicitly > mentioned compatibility), and yet "exact-only" still won 6 out of 8 > votes. > > How can such a strong win for "exact-only" be reversed by the editors, > and why wasn't this reversal brought up on the mailing list? > > Mark > > [1] http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/WG1Ballot3Results#WG1-Numerics > [2] http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/ticket/117 > > _______________________________________________ > Scheme-reports mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports >
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
