Re: [Scheme-reports] read-error? and file-error? should be part of their respective packages.

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Arthur Smyles scripsit:

> Both read-error? and file-error? are currently part of (scheme
> base). Since both the read procedure and file procedures are in
> separate libraries and are optional, it does not make sense to make
> these 2 procedures required. I propose that read-error? be part of the
> (scheme read) library, and that file-error? be part of the (scheme
> file) library.

That is an *excellent* idea, and I only wish we had thought of it.
Unfortunately, I have to say that it just comes too late in the process.

Fortunately, implementations that don't have the read and file libraries
can easily use these stubs:

(define (read-error? x) #f)
(define (file-error? x) #f)

-- 
John Cowan    cowan@x    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Heckler: "Go on, Al, tell 'em all you know.  It won't take long."
Al Smith: "I'll tell 'em all we *both* know.  It won't take any longer."

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