The Chibi Scheme sample implementation of SRFI 198 I supply won't be different, except it'll be complete and in sync with that SRFI.

I thought one of the implicit points of SRFI 198 is that it can create a disjoint type that can be included and shared by SRFI 170 and other POSIX interface implementations. The interim SRFI 198 I just created for my Chibi Scheme SRFI 170 sample implementation does just that, so I guess the answer to my question is that the latter should continue to import SRFI 198, and then export the below mentioned names.

I think because of the sample implementations being different, SRFI 170 should export its own implementations. So no, people should not import both 170 and 198.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:33 PM <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com> wrote:

All of syscall-error?, syscall-error:errno, syscall-error:message, syscall-error:procedure-name, and syscall-error:data are mentioned in the current SRFI 170 draft, but they come from SRFI 198, and are easy accessed by importing it. Should they also be exported by SRFI 170??