This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 55 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 55 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
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.
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