Re: My recommendation for the bounds argument taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 10 Nov 2015 10:03 UTC

John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> Since SRFI 126 is meant to be R6RS compatible where possible, and since
> R6RS hash functions accept only one argument, SRFI 126 functions should
> accept one argument too.
>
> Here's a sentence I'm going to put into SRFI 125 and SRFI 128, and I
> recommend for SRFI 126 as well:
>
>     If hash function authors wish to be backward compatible with the
>     reference implementation of SRFI 69, they are advised to write
>     their hash functions to accept a second argument and ignore it.

Draft 9 of SRFI-126 will probably drop the bound argument.

That paragraph doesn't make much sense for SRFI-126 though, since it's
R6RS based.

Taylan