On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 05:31:26PM -0700, Bradd W. Szonye wrote: > > 2. Implement them as an optional library. > Disadvantages: This doesn't work well in PLT when the library makes > changes to core-language interfaces. If you write a module in R5RS > Scheme, you can't redefine the R5RS bindings. Unlike Scheme-48, the > PLT module system does not permit shadowing (and for good reason, > IMO). You can avoid this by implementing a SRFI as its own language, > but then you run into the same problem when you try to combine two of > them. Thats absolutely untrue. It is in fact a violation of R5RS to prohibit overriding of the procedures and syntax from R5RS. > > I've eaten similar dog food in a lot of languages. If someone else > > volunteers to do what you ask, great. > > Until you eat your *own* dogfood, you don't know whether it tastes good. > And I'll repeat what I said to Taylor: Until you've actually used this > to create concrete collections, you're publishing a "Scheme Request for > Design Docs," not a request for implementation. Yes, the SRFI name itself is a bad match for what is occuring here, but it is still the right venue.
Description: PGP signature