On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 05:31:26PM -0700, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
> 2. Implement them as an optional library.
>    Disadvantages: This doesn't work well in PLT when the library makes
>    changes to core-language interfaces. If you write a module in R5RS
>    Scheme, you can't redefine the R5RS bindings. Unlike Scheme-48, the
>    PLT module system does not permit shadowing (and for good reason,
>    IMO). You can avoid this by implementing a SRFI as its own language,
>    but then you run into the same problem when you try to combine two of
>    them.

Thats absolutely untrue.  It is in fact a violation of R5RS to prohibit
overriding of the procedures and syntax from R5RS.

> > I've eaten similar dog food in a lot of languages.  If someone else
> > volunteers to do what you ask, great.
>
> Until you eat your *own* dogfood, you don't know whether it tastes good.
> And I'll repeat what I said to Taylor: Until you've actually used this
> to create concrete collections, you're publishing a "Scheme Request for
> Design Docs," not a request for implementation.

Yes, the SRFI name itself is a bad match for what is occuring here, but
it is still the right venue.