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

Re: a simple counter-proposal

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.

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, felix wrote:

> Yes, so what prevents `require-extension' to be such a disjoint config-language
> form? If I understand correctly merely requiring that `require-extension' should
> be the first form in the program text (directly, not as an expansion of another
> macro) would make it compatible with Scheme48, right?

Yes, although I don't understand why you'd want to so dramatically
move away from SRFI 7 when it is such a trivial amendment to SRFI 7,
SRFI 7 provides much more quite useful functionality anyway, and SRFI 7
permits extension considerably more easily: the PROGRAM form is a quite
general form, whereas REQUIRE-EXTENSION has only one purpose, to
declare a dependency on a feature.