[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: syntax changes (srfi-107/108/109)
On 12/30/2012 11:37 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Per Bothner scripsit:
Technically, it's well-defined R6RS lexical syntax, but it would be
Oh, I don't deny it. But I understood that SRFI 10 were meant
to never redefine any construct that has meaning in R6RS.
I don't think that's a requirement of the SRFI process, and I don't
see it as a desirable requirement. I would prefer to not redefine
any construct that is meaningful in RRS or existing implementations,
but sometimes you have to trade off functionality for compatibility.
If we're not redefining any construct that has meaning in R7RS or
in R5RS, and only redefining a weird horrible-style corner-case in
R6RS, and it doesn't conflict with existing practice (as far as I know),
that seem acceptable to me. Others may disagree - that's part of the
feedback I'm hoping for.