On 1/2/06, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The decision to withdraw or finalize is in the end solely in the hands of > the proposer. If you do implement a withdrawn SRFI, I see no reason not > to represent that you do so -- if my code does in fact depend on SRFI > 12, I should be able to portably write (require-extension (srfi 12)) > at the top of my code without provoking an error on a system that does > in fact implement it.
So shall it be then (darcs head, 2.218). > > What's the difference between SRFI 11 and what Chicken provides? > IIRC, only 'let-values' is SRFI-11 compliant (contributed by Reed Sherida, but not 'let*-values'. But changing the implementation of the latter to use the former, we should get it compliant. I'll fix this. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
