Re: Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection?
Lassi Kortela 16 Aug 2020 09:06 UTC
>>> it is a big topic itself and I'd like to discuss it separately.
>>> Right now it's hard for me to see the rationale to require those
>>> info *only* for srfi-170 (or, foreign errors if we include srfi-198).
>>
>> So you're thinking of expanding the scope beyond SRFI 198? That
>> indeed makes a lot of sense, but it's hard to see how it would
>> avoid an indefinite delay in finalizing SRFI 198. As in, while
>> perhaps not quite a "boil the oceans" goal like a universal FFI,
>> how do you think you could keep it from becoming a very big and
>> invasive to existing Scheme implementations effort?
>>
>> My intention is rather to split srfi-198 from generic
>> debugging/inspection interface (but not assuming the latter is
>> possible). Specifically, scheme-procedure and args optional (at least
>> for srfi-170).
>
> Ah, yes, that goal makes complete sense.
I also agree that Shiro's advice is wise. Let's make the procedure and
argument info optional in SRFI 170 (and naturally in 198 as well).
> John, what do you think?
