This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 0 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 0 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
>>>>> "Donovan" == Donovan Kolbly <donovan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: Donovan> The specification part of the suggested revision to SRFI-0 does not Donovan> seem to indicate the meaning of the multiple feature identifiers which may Donovan> be present in IMPORT-IMPLEMENTATION. Donovan> I assume that the bindings associated with all the named features are to Donovan> be imported...? Yes. That was a syntactic oversight I have hopefully corrected. It's surprisingly awkward (for me, anyhow) to formulate this right. Donovan> Also, I can't tell if it satisfies the specification for a system to do Donovan> the work IMPORT-READER-SYNTAX via IMPORT-IMPLEMENTATION. That is, could a Donovan> SRFI-0 (revised) conforming implementation have IMPORT-READER-SYNTAX be an Donovan> alias for IMPORT-IMPLEMENTATION? It is certainly not the intention because of the semantic ambiguities associated with this. What does it mean for IMPORT-READER-SYNTAX (or an IMPORT-IMPLEMENTATION performing its job) to appear anywhere but at the beginning of a syntactic processing unit? Does it retroactively affect the preceding part of the processing unit? What is its scope if it occurs inside a toplevel BEGIN? And so on. I actually do think the proposal makes these issues clear, but I'd be glad to hear suggestions for clarifying this point. Donovan> (I am assuming the general rule that, unless otherwise specified, a system Donovan> can accept erroneous input. That is, it may be an error to put Donovan> IMPORT-READER-SYNTAX elsewhere in the file, but I'm not obliged to detect Donovan> it if it happens.) Exactly. (In fact, the "reference implementation" has this property.) -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla