Hello, Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> skribis:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> >> Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> skribis: >> > record-type in r6rs is more convenient I think. >> >> That’s not the question. ;-) It doesn’t justify pulling in all of R6RS. >> > > This is just a small part of a much larger review, but it should be > possible to import (rnrs records syntactic), right? Yes, but even that pulls a number of other rnrs modules. It seems to me that SRFI-9, even if it’s slightly more verbose, would be much less of a burden here. > I know that supporting other peoples' r6rs programs is also a reason, but I > think that Guile should be able to use the libraries it itself > bundles. I agree in general, yes. But when the run-time footprint can be reduced at little cost, it seems nice to do it. > And in theory, using RnRS libraries is nice because it promotes > portable Scheme code. (I do agree that R6RS is a sort of weird case, > because a lot of it is different names for features that Guile already > has in another form. I'm not sure if that changes this or not.) Exactly: the problem I have with R6RS is that it basically re-implements several SRFIs or APIs otherwise available in Guile, sometimes just for dubious aesthetic reasons–e.g., SRFI-1, SRFI-9, SRFI-3[45]. Traditionally ice-9 modules have not used them. (Note that R7RS is likely to make that even worse...) Ludo’.
