[R6RS] Timeline for R6RS SRFIs

[Michael Sperber]

"Manuel Serrano" <Manuel.Serrano at sophia.inria.fr> writes:

> I guess that you meant SRFI 68. We have not had the chance to talk
> about this proposal in Boston. I'm sorry Mike but I strongly disagree
> with this SRFI. I think that its far to big (the document is nearly as
> long as the R5Rs), it introduces too many functions and complexity and
> I'm not sure it enables efficient implementation. Personally I'm not sure
> that it's a good starting point for our discussion on Binary IO. Of course,
> I can be wrong and I would like to read what the others think about it.

That's why I said we can just drop all but the imperative layer for
consideration for R6RS, if that's what everybody wants.  The nice
thing about it is that it isn't monolithic, after all.

I agree there may be efficiency considerations, but how about
addressing them with SRFI 68?  (I have a fairly specific idea on how
to do that.)  After all, it's neither final nor finished yet.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla