Shiro Kawait wrote: > This makes me wonder. Is it possible to have a SRFI that > describes "discouraged" features in, or "amendments" to, the > standard?
That's up to the SRFI editors, but I sincerely hope they allow it. Indeed, I don't see why the SRFI editors would refuse to allow SRFIs that propose proper subsets of selected R6RS libraries or feature sets (e.g. lexical syntax, load-library, a simplified import form for R5RS-style programs). Several of the R6RS editors and ex-editors are on record as saying they did not intend for the R6RS to preclude R5RS-style programs or interactive development, which means we'll need SRFIs that extend the R5RS with some R6RS features. IMO, SRFIs that provide a clean upgrade path for R5RS programs are essential to the eventual success of successors to the R6RS. Furthermore I am on record as saying I will help to write some of those SRFIs. Let me emphasize, however, that I regard these SRFIs as temporary measures, to tide us over until the Scheme community succeeds in developing a more widely accepted standard that can supersede both the R5RS and the R6RS. > Such srfi may also serve an experiment field to see what > we should do in R7RS. +1 Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
