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.
campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > If 'the typing argument' isn't the main issue, _what_is_? That's my question too. It doesn't standardize existing practice; the name, syntax, and semantics are different from similar features in existing Schemes. It ignores the standard feature identifiers introduced by SRFI-0 and SRFI-7, so it isn't even compatible systems that provide those. Furthermore, I think it's unlikely that Scheme vendors will support SRFI-55 well enough to make it common practice in the future. Contrary to Felix's claims, it takes more than a simple macro to implement this even in Schemes that could support it. For example, there is no simple way to load SRFI-1 in PLT Scheme; the language imposes special requirements because SRFI-1 overrides standard Scheme procedures. They differ depending on whether you want to load SRFI-1 at top-level or in module scope. This SRFI is gratuitously incompatible with previous specifications, and it's much harder to implement than the author has claimed. It duplicates features that Scheme implementations already provides, but with an incompatible syntax and, in some cases, very difficult semantics. I see it as no improvement over existing practice, and in some cases a significant step backwards. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd