Am So., 16. Aug. 2020 um 14:30 Uhr schrieb <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com>: > > > From: Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> > > Date: Sunday, August 16, 2020 1:31 AM > > > >> I also don't like set, but consider it a placeholder for now, we should > >> be able to come up with a better name. > >> > >> But before going to that effort, we have to agree on the need for it. > >> If it's not mandatory, it's a */very/* different thing, and while > >> "convention" is a synonym for me in context, "protocol" isn't particularly. > > > > IMHO the purpose of 'set is to give meaning to 'code/number and > > 'name/symbol. 'code/number and 'name/symbol make sense without 'set, in > > the same way that a grammatically correct but taken-out-of-context > > sentence makes sense in English. It refers to something definite but > > since you lack the context, you don't know what specifically. > > > > In that sense 'set is not technically mandatory yet is obviously useful. > > Thus we have incompatible visions for SRFI 198. I have to admit that I haven't found the time to follow all discussions thoroughly (and just looked locally at posts). So could anyone of you describe in a few words what the current status of SRFI 198 is and why it is a must for SRFI 170? What is the problem with SRFI 35 compound conditions, which equally pack various data into an error object?
