John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> schrieb am Sa., 29. Juli 2017 um 20:28 Uhr:


From: "Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen" <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de>

<p>
Therefore, the author of this SRFI now recommends that implementers ignore this extra requirement so that <code>(srfi 149)</code> may export a version of <code>syntax-rules</code> compatible with this SRFI and <code>(scheme base)</code> may exports another.  Instead, it is recommended that implementations provide a feature identifier <code>srfi-149</code> in case the implementation of <code>syntax-rules</code> in <code>(scheme base)</code> has the semantics as specified in this SRFI.
</p>

Marc

My only objection is to the name of the feature identifier.  I think it would be easy to misunderstand "srfi-149" as meaning the same as "(library (srfi 149))" in cond-expand. 

Even if people misunderstood this, this wouldn't be much of a problem. An implementation providing the feature identifier srfi-149 would also provide the library (srfi 149), so if one wrote srfi-149 instead of (library (srfi 149)) in a cond-expand, it would do no harm.

Don't you think?
 
So I would suggest "srfi-149-compatible" or perhaps "srfi-149-ellipsis".

--
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
If I have not seen as far as other giants, it’s because I have been
standing on my head.  --Trond Engen 


To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=HPnO69Ijc0fnLAmtlfwu0Yu43aG4fvix