Peter Bex scripsit: > What's the point of opening a ticket and then immediately closing it > again? Can you even *do* that without input from the other members?
It records that a formal comment was made in a way that's easier to search than the mailing list archive. Other members can reopen it if they see fit. > Also, there may have been no new *arguments*, but the fact it's a formal > comment (complaint) from the community (and an implementer, no less) > should hold some weight and shouldn't be dismissed offhand. I didn't dismiss it out of hand. That would have been "Nope, we already decided otherwise." > I think this deserves some more careful consideration. Asking every > implementation out there that already supports SRFI-4 to rename their > procedures without a very good reason is obnoxious. "Rename" implies that the old names go away, but it's only inside the (scheme base) library that the R7RS-small names have to be visible. In the REPL, (scheme base) must be imported, but so can other names at the discretion of the implementation. -- La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi John Cowan Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi. [email protected] --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
