why not 3 different SRFIs Marc Feeley (14 Sep 1999 14:45 UTC)
Re: why not 3 different SRFIs Lars Thomas Hansen (14 Sep 1999 14:54 UTC)
Re: why not 3 different SRFIs Richard Kelsey (14 Sep 1999 15:57 UTC)

why not 3 different SRFIs Marc Feeley 14 Sep 1999 14:45 UTC

It seems to me that the three kinds of expressions proposed are
completely orthogonal.  Then why should they all be put in one SRFI?
It forces an implementation to implement all 3 to be able to claim
(cond-expand (srfi-11 'yes)).  An implementor might just implement
case-lambda, and a user might just be interested in case-lambda, but
they can't convey this information to each other through cond-expand.

Marc