Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: > I suspect that a "common consensus" on the set of SRFIs that makes a > "practical implementation" will emerge organically, and predicting that > set to mandate it now will be difficult :-)
I think the bar should and and will be low to add a SRFI (or R6RS section) as an optional library. To add it as a mandatory library, one that the user can always count on having, will be more difficult, but I still expect a fair number of them. The most difficult thing will be the extensions to library declarations, because they don't even make sense in non R7RS-systems and can't be implemented in portable R7RS-small. I have a tentative proposal at <http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/LibraryDeclarationsCowan> but I'm going to be slow to bring it to a vote. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Being understandable rather than obscurantist poses certain risks, in that one's opinions are clear and therefore falsifiable in the light of new data, but it has the advantage of encouraging feedback from others. --James A. Matisoff _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
