On Nov 19, 2007 1:49 AM, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Thank you for all your work on this SRFI. I don't have a good feel
for the tradeoffs involved in the even-vs.-odd decision, but your
arguments there are compelling.

I would like to offer a few copy-editing and naming suggestions:

* In the third paragraph of the Rationale section, you use the phrase
"vitally critical," but that's redundant. The word "vital" by itself
would be better.

* I'd prefer that the names of the procedures `const', `lsec', and
`rsec' be spelled out as `constant', `left-section', and
`right-section'. I find full names much more pleasant to read.

* In A Pipeline of Procedures, the indentation of
`stream-fold-right-one' is not right.

* In Pitfalls, you contrast Scheme with a "purely functional
language," but you seem to intend to compare it to a lazy functional
language there. A language that was purely functional (i.e. not allow
side effects) but not lazy would suffer the same problem you describe
there.

Thank you for putting this SRFI together. It's valuable not only
because of what it proposes, but also because of its thoughtful and
thorough explication of the idea of streams in Scheme.