[r6rs-discuss] criteria for including or excluding a library

[Michael Sperber]

William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> Could be a SRFI?
>
>     If the library could be implemented portably, with
>     reasonable efficiency, using only the rest of R6RS,
>     then it could be described by a SRFI and provided by
>     a portable reference implementation instead of being
>     included within the R6RS.

I suggest that the heading here is misleading.  (As Sam TH already
pointed out.)  The SRFI process in no way mandates portable reference
implementations, and a number of SRFIs don't.  There's another bullet
where the dichotomy becomes evident:

> (r6rs i/o primitive), section 15.2 of the draft R6RS:
>
>     Could be a SRFI?  yes

That should be: yes, but requires compiler support
        for efficiency

It could be implemented in terms of ports, but that would be putting
the intention of the I/O design on its head, and would incur
significant loss of efficiency.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla