Finally clauses Tony Garnock-Jones (09 Aug 2002 14:05 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses Dave Mason (09 Aug 2002 14:58 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses Richard Kelsey (09 Aug 2002 23:28 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses Tony Garnock-Jones (12 Aug 2002 11:24 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses Richard Kelsey (13 Aug 2002 00:48 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses Tony Garnock-Jones (13 Aug 2002 17:35 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses Richard Kelsey (15 Aug 2002 01:47 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses Tony Garnock-Jones (15 Aug 2002 11:11 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses bear (15 Aug 2002 15:19 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses sperber@xxxxxx (29 Aug 2002 08:08 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses bear (01 Sep 2002 20:55 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses Richard Kelsey (01 Sep 2002 22:22 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses bear (04 Sep 2002 03:07 UTC)
Re: Finally clauses Richard Kelsey (04 Sep 2002 06:55 UTC)

Re: Finally clauses Richard Kelsey 04 Sep 2002 06:53 UTC

   Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
   From: bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net>

   Is it your understanding that the srfi process is about producing
   library code?

No, as it happens, but that is irrelevent.  To recapitulate:

   Bear: The business of passing around thunks and continuations
     as objects as in SRFI 34 seems to me to get in my way and
     complicate things, and I don't think it actually provides
     more generality or functionality.

   Richard Kelsey: The generality it provides is that it runs in
     implementations of R5RS.

Specifying SRFI 34, or any other SRFI, in terms of R5RS has utility.
I said nothing about it being a requirement.

                                    -Richard Kelsey