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



I just wanted to mention a small amendment to the SRFI-55 document.
Specifically, a few lines in the Rationale:

"Most implementations of Scheme include a form very similar to require-extension.
This SRFI can therefore be viewed, in the context of those Schemes, as merely a
standard naming convention.

It is possible for an implementation's design, contrary to common practice, to
conflict with the semantics of require-extension. Such an implementation would
provide an alternative means of specifying requirements. This SRFI does not aim
to be ubiquitous, only to capture current idiom."

I'd like to add that I sent the upated SRFI-55 document several times to both the
srfi-editors mailing list and our esteemed SRFI editor Michael Sperber, but apparently
it got lost or was ignored.