Eduardo Cavazos <[email protected]> writes: > On 04/14/2010 02:51 PM, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > >> I've now started with splitting out stuff from spells, and stumbled upon >> one case I'd like to get feedback on: in the foof-loop package, I'd like >> to add `nested-foof-loop', a library built on foof-loop that provides >> for a more concise way of expressing nested loops. That library needs (a >> subset of) stream.scm[0], which I've extended in obvious ways with a few >> procedures having the same interface as SRFI 41 (Streams). Now >> streams.scm is very minimal, and the extensions have precedence in SRFI >> 41 -- does it make sense to include them in the "ported" collection, or >> should I refrain from doing so? Arguments in either direction would be >> appriciated! > > So it would show up as something like '(ported riastreams)'? Or were > you thinking about adding it as a private item under > '(ported foof-loop)'? Either way seems OK. > The former, as the streams generated by nested-foof-loop must be accessible from other code. I'm not sure about the name, though: it's Riastradh's streams, but with code added by myself...
Regards, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann -- <http://rotty.yi.org/>
