Re: syntax changes (srfi-107/108/109)

[Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> > horrible style.
>
> Oh, I don't deny it.  But I understood that SRFI 10[789] 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 R[567]RS 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.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/