[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: why not 3 different SRFIs

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 11 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 11 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.

>It seems to me that the three kinds of expressions proposed are
>completely orthogonal.  Then why should they all be put in one SRFI?
>It forces an implementation to implement all 3 to be able to claim
>(cond-expand (srfi-11 'yes)).  An implementor might just implement
>case-lambda, and a user might just be interested in case-lambda, but
>they can't convey this information to each other through cond-expand.

You're right, and I had some doubts about this myself.  I will consider
splitting the SRFI up.