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

Re: duplication of SRFIs

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.

Per Bothner wrote:

> 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.

Well, there are many reasons to have duplicate standards, including
fundamentally incompatible designs, and arguably a certain amount of
healthy competition among SRFIs is a good thing.

On the other hand, it's not clear to me what the purpose of SRFI-78
is as opposed to SRFI-64.  It claims to be lightweight yet adds a
CHECK-EC form, which is unnecessary, pulls in a requirement for
SRFI-42, and doesn't seem to offer much more than running tests
inside an existing comprehension available once you are using
SRFI-42.  In exchange it removes any handling of exceptions, which
seems to be rather crippling for a test SRFI.

One might argue that the groups and filtering capabilities of SRFI-64
are heavy, and thus desire a trimmed down version, but in that case
it would be nice to use a compatible subset, as in the formatting
SRFIs 28 and 48.  You could even participate in the ongoing SRFI-64
discussion where the author has indeed been very receptive to