[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] features
- To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] features
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 17:11:09 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <BANLkTinvbg4f4jYyNWfZ0c=iQht=25edvA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <email@example.com> <BANLkTinvbg4f4jYyNWfZ0c=iQht=25edvA@mail.gmail.com>
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Andy Wingo <wingo@x> wrote:
> > Table B.1 is swine before pearls; there's a back-handed compliment
> > for you! Basically the whole document has a hearty schemey flavor,
> > like a good traditional meal, yet with sawdust as dessert.
> > Suggestion: move (most of) the features to a SRFI, where adequate
> > space can be allotted to their definition.
> I agree it is out of place, but think we should move it to WG2.
I think it's important: it allows cond-expand to do the work done
by SRFI 103 in the R6RS environment, and it allows it to be done by
implementation feature, rather than just by implementation. I would not
be averse to spelling out what the names mean.
Where the wombat has walked, John Cowan <cowan@x>
it will inevitably walk again. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Scheme-reports mailing list