Re: Problems with FDOs as they are specified in SRFI 170 Marc Nieper-WiÃkirchen 12 Sep 2020 13:04 UTC
Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 22:47 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <email@example.com>: > I agree that a fdo-internal-fd is a Good Thing, with the same warnings as port-internal-fdo, and I have added it for the benefit of other SRFIs. What do you mean by "for the benefit of other SRFIs" exactly? If just for the benefit of implementing them, exposing them to the user-visible API doesn't look right. Or is a consumer of the final set of SRFIs expected to call these procedures?