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

Re: Scheme RFCs

To: srfi-discuss@srfi.schemers.org
Subject: Re: Scheme RFCs
From: Matthias Felleisen <matthias@cs.rice.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:49:17 -0600 (CST)
In-reply-to: <16Nov1998.221336.Alan@LCS.MIT.EDU> (message from Alan Bawden onMon, 16 Nov 1998 22:29:24 -0500 (EST))
References: <199811140059.TAA03940@shivers.ne.mediaone.net> <16Nov1998.121709.Alan@LCS.MIT.EDU> <199811162018.OAA21610@africa.cs.rice.edu> <16Nov1998.221336.Alan@LCS.MIT.EDU>
Reply-to: matthias@rice.edu
Xref: brabantio.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de srfi:33


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. 

-- Matthias

P.S. I am not married to my proposal. I just think that some separation
makes it easier to navigate.

References:
- Re: Scheme Resuest for Implementation
  - From: Olin Shivers <shivers@mongkok.ai.mit.edu>
- Scheme RFCs
  - From: Alan Bawden <Alan@lcs.mit.edu>
- Re: Scheme RFCs
  - From: Matthias Felleisen <matthias@cs.rice.edu>
- Re: Scheme RFCs
  - From: Alan Bawden <Alan@lcs.mit.edu>
- Re: Scheme RFCs
  - From: Alan Bawden <Alan@lcs.mit.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: Scheme RFCs
Next by Date: Re: Scheme RFCs
Prev by thread: Re: Scheme RFCs
Next by thread: Re: Scheme RFCs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread