This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 78 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 78 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
What can I say: I'm annoyed. Of course the SRFI processes *allows* duplicate "standards", but clearly that should be undesirable, except in the case of documenting existing practice. That is not the case with SRFI-64 vs -78, as far as I know. One of the reasons for SRFI-64 is that I think the Scheme world needs a standard for test-suites: Specifically,there should be can expectation that SRFIs should come with a portable suitesuite. That becomes a lot less likely when we have competing SRFIs. > The mechanism in this SRFI does not replace more sophisticated > approaches to unit testing, like SRFI 64  or SchemeUnit . Do you really believe that? People are going to choose one syntax for a test-suite and having multiple APIs makes it less likely people will write testsuites. Why would you want a "lightweight testing" framework and a separate "sophisticated testing" that are incompatible? If you really want lightwight testing, we should work on common subset. I've been quite open to suggestion. If you don't like the style of SRFI-64, it would be helpful to know why. Howwver, the styles actually seem very similar at initial look - and I couldn't find your name in the SRFI-64 discussion archive. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/