Problems with FDOs as they are specified in SRFI 170 hga@xxxxxx (11 Sep 2020 13:16 UTC)
Re: Problems with FDOs as they are specified in SRFI 170 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (11 Sep 2020 13:58 UTC)
(missing)
Re: Problems with FDOs as they are specified in SRFI 170 Shiro Kawai (12 Sep 2020 19:18 UTC)
Re: Problems with FDOs as they are specified in SRFI 170 Shiro Kawai (12 Sep 2020 22:00 UTC)
Re: Problems with FDOs as they are specified in SRFI 170 Shiro Kawai (17 Sep 2020 05:09 UTC)
Re: Problems with FDOs as they are specified in SRFI 170 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (12 Sep 2020 13:04 UTC)

Re: Problems with FDOs as they are specified in SRFI 170 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 12 Sep 2020 13:04 UTC

Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 22:47 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:

> 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?