> Please elaborate on the reason. Would we run into problems if we tried > to specify a super-minimal contract about what guarantees present and > future keyword systems provide to help SRFI writers? > > A SRFI has to be implementable and usable as written. It has to give > specimens of procedure calls that will actually work for users, and its > sample implementation has to be based on procedures and syntax that > actually exist. An abstract description is not sufficient. The contract would give specific guarantees heeded by all keyword systems, as well as a reference syntax to use in SRFIs and other specifications. Note that this is different from SRFI 177 which has a reference _implementation_. The contract would not have one. > (Below .sig chosen at random from my list; no personal reference intended!) > > That you can cover for the plentiful and often gaping errors, misconstruals > and disinformation in your posts through sheer volume -- that is another > misconception. lol. It's apt. I find that volunteering to be the dumb person in a group is often the fastest way to get the group to solve a problem. And at the very least it raises the others' self esteem, which also makes the group more productive :)
