[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Scheme RFCs
Sorry 'srfi123 was of course a joke, but I guess it didn't come across.
I think the `restrictive' srfi is useful in the same way Types are useful:
they enforce a certain discipline. I am hoping that people who specify
requests for language extensions/supplements/what-shall-we-call-them use
the restrictions as a first and simple check. That's all.
At the same time, I would love to see little gems (say Dan Friedman's
little 511 puzzles) in the `unrestrictive' series. They have nothing to do
with the first kind of srfi and I don't see why they should go into the
same collection. Even Schemers separate integers from inexacts.
P.S. I am not married to my proposal. I just think that some separation
makes it easier to navigate.