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

> 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.

I see now, thanks for the explanation.

Taylan