Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 18:39 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:

>> > (unless we
>> > define that (scheme XXX) is the "current" version of whatever library
>> > while the initial R7RS will only be guaranteed when accessed through,
>> > say (scheme XXX (7)).)
>
>
> That is not my intent; new libraries can be (scheme ...) but revisions will need some other way to mark them.  Per contra, nobody has *ever* suggested yearly revisions!  Personally, I think that's insanely aggressive; people want to use the latest, but not if it changes too quickly.

You mean, a future version of (scheme list) where, say, lset= is
replaced by the more regular lset=? is possible in your vision?

A way to mark it/test for it would be to extend the cond-expand
feature slightly. At the moment, we can test, with the library clause,
whether a particular library is there. A new clause of the form
(export <library name> <identifier> ...) would help a lot here. I
think it can be easily provided by the R7RS implementations. Just
someone has to write a SRFI. :)

> Nobody at all supports it AFAIK.
>
>
>
>
> John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
> Kill Gorgun!  Kill orc-folk!  No other words please Wild Men.  Drive away
> bad air and darkness with bright iron!   --Ghan-buri-Ghan
>