This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 108 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 108 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
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 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. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/