On 2020-10-31 20:48 +0100, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> By the way, is there a reason why SRFI 209 is not designed as a
> compatible extension of the R6RS library?
How would you suggest this work? I was discussing the idea with John
on the #scheme Freenode channel and John suggested three possible
ways of combining SRFI 209 and (r6rs enums):
(a) Ensure that (r6rs enums) can be implemented on top of SRFI 209.
(b) Do the above and provide a sample SRFI-209-based implementation
of (r6rs enums).
(c) Add all of the (rnrs enums) forms to SRFI 209, making this a
(I'm paraphrasing, so apologies to John if I've misinterpreted
If it's possible (and I believe it is) to make this SRFI compatible
with the R6RS library without too much redesign, I'm all for it.
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Scientists must be optimists at heart, in order to block out the
incessant chorus of those who say 'It cannot be done.'"
--Academician Prokhor Zakharov