This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 0 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 0 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Marc Feeley wrote: > > Is it permissible for an implementation to make available the definitions > > implied by a SRFI only within the body of a corresponding `if-implements'? > > No. > > Remember that an SRFI just describes a property of a Scheme system > which is more general than an API consisting of a set of procedures > and special forms. [...] True -- that issue I didn't know how to deal with. But then I'm having trouble seeing how `if-implements' could ever work if SRFIs ever conflict (as they will, especially when libraries are revised). It becomes an inherently a global operator, with no control over scope or conflict. It sounds, then, like a system which supports conflicting SRFIs could not support SRFI-0, which makes me uncomfortable -- I was hoping SRFI-0 could specify anchor from which all else could be determined. On the other hand, maybe some future SRFI could just contain a conflicting specification for `if-implements' in some clever mostly backward-compatible way, and SRFI-0 will become deprecated. -- Donovan Kolbly ( RScheme Development Group ( d.kolbly@xxxxxxxxxxx ( http://www.rscheme.org/~donovan/