Re: [scheme-reports-wg2] SRFI 43 vs. R7RS-small John Cowan 04 Nov 2015 01:59 UTC

Faré scripsit:

> If it is called SRFI-43, it MUST follow the standard, and its bindings
> should shadow those of the environment into which it is imported; too
> bad if that conflicts with other useful functionality.

There's no dispute about that.  The question is in transforming SRFI 43
into an R7RS-large library, what changes (if any) should be made to it?

> I believe 3 is better than 2,


> However, it can be called "srfi-43-modified-for-r7rs", or something
> else that evokes srfi-43. Probably, someone should issue a new srfi
> that does just that.

I expect it may be called SRFI 133.  (You didn't know I was a closet

John Cowan
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev