[r6rs-discuss] Issues with section 8.2. Port I/O, a.k.a. (rnrs io ports (6))

From: William D Clinger <will>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:10:06 -0400

Shiro Kawait wrote:
> This makes me wonder. Is it possible to have a SRFI that
> describes "discouraged" features in, or "amendments" to, the
> standard?

That's up to the SRFI editors, but I sincerely hope
they allow it.

Indeed, I don't see why the SRFI editors would refuse
to allow SRFIs that propose proper subsets of selected
R6RS libraries or feature sets (e.g. lexical syntax,
load-library, a simplified import form for R5RS-style
programs). Several of the R6RS editors and ex-editors
are on record as saying they did not intend for the
R6RS to preclude R5RS-style programs or interactive
development, which means we'll need SRFIs that extend
the R5RS with some R6RS features. IMO, SRFIs that
provide a clean upgrade path for R5RS programs are
essential to the eventual success of successors to
the R6RS.

Furthermore I am on record as saying I will help to
write some of those SRFIs.

Let me emphasize, however, that I regard these SRFIs
as temporary measures, to tide us over until the Scheme
community succeeds in developing a more widely accepted
standard that can supersede both the R5RS and the R6RS.

> Such srfi may also serve an experiment field to see what
> we should do in R7RS.

+1

Will
Received on Tue Aug 28 2007 - 07:10:06 UTC