"Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> writes:

> On Sun, Sep 27, 2026 at 4:31 AM Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide <xxxxxx@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Is there a standard for optional extensions of SRFI’s?
>
> There isn't, really, except to write another SRFI that recommends extensions.  Of course, if you're writing
> both SRFIs, you can write the first one to make the extensions easier to add later, e.g. by explicitly leaving
> certain things unspecified.

Artyom Bologov <xxxxxx@aartaka.me> writes:
> Maybe add a separate library? That’s the only thing I can think
> of. Except for a separate SRFI, of course.

Then I think I should create a second SRFI.

The implementation supports both styles.

How can I reference in the current SRFI that a second one will follow
that describes the other style?

The reason for two SRFI’s is that I want to reduce the requirements for
implementations: someone who doesn’t want to use my syntax-rules should
be able to only implement one of the two versions.

Or would a pure extension SRFI be better, so that if people get the
second SRFI they always get both styles?

That way we’d always only have to import a single SRFI, never two, to
support both styles.

Best wishes,
Arne
--
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
https://www.draketo.de