I'm cc'ing this to the SRFI discussion group.  There was quite
a debate about issue 3, which ended up both with that format and only
including that as an extension in SRFI-29, so if you disagree, the point
really should be raised on the list.    1,2,4 are all valid of course.
I believe 5 may be correct as is, but I'll check.  6: Could you clarify
what you mean by setting mode?  As for the names, these guys match up with
parameters in most Scheme systems, but I'm not opposed to making them more
Schemish.

	Scott

On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:15:29AM +0200, Sven Hartrumpf wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Here are some comments for SRFI-29.
> 1. SRFI 29 -> SRFI-29
> 2. senstive -> sensitive
> 3. ~[_N_]@* : I think that this it is a very problematic dependency to
>    request in SRFI-29 an extension of SRFI-28.
>    Why not have it in SRFI-28? (The implementation should be easy.)
>    (BTW: can this sequence be shortened somehow?)
>    N should be specified more clearly: "N is a nonzero decimal digit,
>    i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9."
> 4. scheme system -> Scheme system
> 5. ISU -> ISO ?
> 6. Implementation: setting mode of current-language and current-country
>    should be covered IMHO.
>    Should they be named more Schemish? set-current-language! or similar.
>
> Having German as my mother language, I consider this SRFI very relevant :-)
>
> Ciao
> Sven
>

--