This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI discuss from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI discuss contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
--- "Schol-R-LEA;2" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: My 2p below... > To start with, I was wondering if there was a general > consensus as to what > sort of things would and would not be suitable for > defining in an SRFI. I think just about anything is appropriate. If others may benefit from it, it is suitable for a SRFI. > To what extent is elegance and appropriate style and > idioms important? Reasonably important. If you want a language with every crap idea under the sun there is Perl... *duck* (Perl isn't THAT bad but it makes an easy target) > Do SRFIs have a political or proselyting role Of course. It may not be official but they certainly have influence. > For example, suppose I were to propose (as I may well do, > if it is suitable) an SRFI for a simple collection of > iterators and conditional forms along the following lines: I have little need for these (except maybe when and unless) and find some of them distasteful but if there is a reasonable justification you could propose it. Many found the generic SRFI (17?) distasteful but it got finalised none the less. > would it be seen as valid to > offer a common 'wrapper' interface for FFI forms... An > object system... A standard > set of OpenGL bindings? These all seem useful to me. I'll let others answer your remaining questions. HTH, Noel ===== Email: noelwelsh <at> yahoo <dot> com AIM: noelhwelsh __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail