On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Marc Feeley wrote:

> > Is it permissible for an implementation to make available the definitions
> > implied by a SRFI only within the body of a corresponding `if-implements'?
>
> No.
>
> Remember that an SRFI just describes a property of a Scheme system
> which is more general than an API consisting of a set of procedures
> and special forms. [...]

True -- that issue I didn't know how to deal with.

But then I'm having trouble seeing how `if-implements' could ever work if
SRFIs ever conflict (as they will, especially when libraries are revised).
It becomes an inherently a global operator, with no control over scope or
conflict.

It sounds, then, like a system which supports conflicting SRFIs could not
support SRFI-0, which makes me uncomfortable -- I was hoping SRFI-0 could
specify anchor from which all else could be determined.  On the other
hand, maybe some future SRFI could just contain a conflicting
specification for `if-implements' in some clever mostly
backward-compatible way, and SRFI-0 will become deprecated.

-- Donovan Kolbly                    (  RScheme Development Group
                                     (  xxxxxx@rscheme.org
				     (  http://www.rscheme.org/~donovan/