>>> 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?
