This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 66 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 66 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
I 100% agree with Marc. I see no purpose to this new STFI, unless it is redefined as a subset of SRFU-4. (1) Adding SRFI-66 to a system that already provides SRFI-4 makes the combined library worse, not better. Providing two names for the same thing is generally a bug, not a feature. (2) Given a choice between implementations with SRFI-4 or one SRFI-66, the former is more useful. (3) Given a choice between SRFI-66 or neither, obviously SRFI-66 is preferable. But the benefits of SRFI-66 can be achieved by respecifying SRFI-66 as a subset of SRFI-4. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/