Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit:

> I don't understand what R5RS has to do with this...

The SRFI is meant to be equally applicable to R5RS, R6RS, and R7RS-small
systems, though also meant as a candidate for R7RS-large.

> What's the problem with re-exporting base bindings?  Importing the same
> binding from two libraries is not an error in R7RS.  Maybe SRFI 1 was
> too optimistic for its time, but given R7RS library semantics it seems
> like the right thing.

You may be right.  But in any case, only the sample implementation is
affected, not the SRFI.  I definitely don't want to have overlapping
definitions that are meant to be identical to those in various RnRS
documents.  When we pull together all the libraries for R7RS-large,
there will be an opportunity to figure out which libraries should export
exactly what identifiers in that specific context.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
   There was an old man                Said with a laugh, "I
     From Peru, whose lim'ricks all      Cut them in half, the pay is
       Look'd like haiku.  He              Much better for two."
                                             --Emmet O'Brien