This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 44 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 44 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
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.
Attachment:
pgpe0KWCxwZTl.pgp
Description: PGP signature