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

Re: [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level

To: John Cowan <cowan@x>
Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level
From: Andy Wingo <wingo@x>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:51:36 -0500
Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
In-reply-to: <20120103205118.GB14957@mercury.ccil.org> (John Cowan's message of "Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:51:19 -0500")
References: <BF4D24DB-77A6-42DF-A35F-FCC92BAD3849@iro.umontreal.ca> <20120103205118.GB14957@mercury.ccil.org>

On Tue 03 Jan 2012 15:51, John Cowan <cowan@x> writes:

> The only required identifier is r7rs.

What purpose does it serve?  If you are cond-expanding in a module, you
already know that you have r7rs.

Thanks,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level
  - From: John Cowan <cowan@x>

References:
- [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level
  - From: Marc Feeley <feeley@x>
- Re: [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level
  - From: John Cowan <cowan@x>

Prev by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Checking implementation features and Scheme name?
Next by Date: Re: [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level
Previous by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level
Next by thread: Re: [Scheme-reports] Standard Feature Identifiers are too low-level
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread