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

Re: More features?



Sven.Hartrumpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Hi all.

I understand that this SRFI should be "an extremely simple facility".
But we should discuss if there are any reasonable features that can be
included without dropping this aim.

Sure.


How about compatibility checks for extension combinations?
For example, some SRFIs are (or will be) incompatible with each other.
Should require-extension report an error if incompatible extensions are
requested?


Hm. But what's an incompatible extension? Two extensions may be incompatible
on one implementation, but (perhaps) not on another. Would you have
a specific example in mind?


Some comments for the draft text:

"REPL": resolve this acronym (in parentheses) because SRFI-55 will be used
  by Scheme beginners, too.

Agreed, I will change that.


"An implementation claiming to support this SRFI must support
require-extension in at least one context."
What does "context" refer to? interactive vs. non-interactive?
This sentence seems to be moved away from its original context :-)

Yes. Perhaps "scope" should be used instead of "context".


"an srfi": "a srfi"?


Someone more proficient in english than me will have to answer that...


cheers,
felix