[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: a simple counter-proposal
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.