Re: Scheme Resuest for Implementation

[Olin Shivers <shivers@mongkok.ai.mit.edu>]

I have one problem with the current SRFI situation -- it seems a bit
restrictive. There is a need for documents that do other than simply
spec a language feature or interface. E.g., a requirements list of
what a particular feature should have (such as a condition system),
or other bits of encapsulated wisdom. Not all RFCs spec protocols.

I note, for example, the SRFI-0 is really not a language-feature spec,
although it does involve a small one. It's really mostly a procedure
spec. I think either

    - SRFIs should be extended to allow these kinds of documents,
      *at the discretion of the editors* (i.e., a dictatorial system,
      run by a Scheme-like "Jon Postel" person, who enjoys trust and
      respect, or perhaps a 2-out-of-3 acceptance mechanisms, given
      3 authors)

    - A *parallel* set of documents, SRFCs, should be established
      for non-implementation-requesting documents.

    -Olin