[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Record layers are not orthogonal.
aghuloum at cs.indiana.edu
Thu Nov 16 01:49:19 EST 2006
On Nov 16, 2006, at 12:50 AM, David Van Horn wrote:
>> Support for SRFIs, even SRFIs with portable implementations, is
>> A convenient interface to records should be provided as part of the
>> language, not as an optional addition.
> I don't understand the problem with these syntactic layers being
> optional. If they are compelling, implementations will support them.
> If not, why should they be included in the language standard?
If I may add that if they can be implemented portably, you wouldn't need
implementation support to use them. You can just import and hack away
theory at least).
I see SRFIs as a way to ask implementors to support libraries that
be expressed using R6RS. Such libraries include FFI, networking,
etc. Libraries that can be expressed directly using R6RS such as
expressions, XML parsers, adventure games, etc. are better distributed
some other distribution mechanism (like PlaneT) since they do not need
SRFI process. Implementors can support popular libraries natively if
More information about the r6rs-discuss