This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 41 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 41 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Thank you for all your work on this SRFI. I don't have a good feel for the tradeoffs involved in the even-vs.-odd decision, but your arguments there are compelling. I would like to offer a few copy-editing and naming suggestions: * In the third paragraph of the Rationale section, you use the phrase "vitally critical," but that's redundant. The word "vital" by itself would be better. * I'd prefer that the names of the procedures `const', `lsec', and `rsec' be spelled out as `constant', `left-section', and `right-section'. I find full names much more pleasant to read. * In A Pipeline of Procedures, the indentation of `stream-fold-right-one' is not right. * In Pitfalls, you contrast Scheme with a "purely functional language," but you seem to intend to compare it to a lazy functional language there. A language that was purely functional (i.e. not allow side effects) but not lazy would suffer the same problem you describe there. Thank you for putting this SRFI together. It's valuable not only because of what it proposes, but also because of its thoughtful and thorough explication of the idea of streams in Scheme.