Round 2 discussion shivers@xxxxxx 04 Nov 1999 13:55 UTC
Re: Round 2 discussion bothner@xxxxxx 04 Nov 1999 22:31 UTC

Re: Round 2 discussion Per Bothner 04 Nov 1999 22:31 UTC writes:

> They aren't dropped from Scheme. They just aren't in this SRFI. This SRFI
> is a specific set of bindings; if you write code that uses this SRFI, you
> use what it provides; no problem.

However, the other srfi's ar *additions* to the standard.  Thus a Scheme
implementor can implement a srfi by just providing the new functionality,
and a Scheme programmer can use a srfi (if available in their
implementation) by just using its functionality.  If you define
something that conflicts with RnRS or some other srfi, things become
hairier for both the implementor and the user.

> If you want stuff that isn't in this SRFI,
> then import that stuff, too. No problem.

But there is no standard module mechanism (yet), except for "load"
so I don't know what "import" means.  There is srfi-7, but that
is rather a big jump for people, since "the configuration language
is entirely distinct from Scheme."
	--Per Bothner