Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@s48.org> writes:

> So where does SRFI-50 fit in this spectrum?  Opinions differ.
> It clearly isn't universal, but then it never was intended
> to be.  As far as I know, the notion that a SRFI should
> necessarily be portable to all implementations appeared for
> the first time in the SRFI-50 discussion.  It certainly came
> as a surpise to me.

I believe you have misunderstood the complaints here, and so I'll try
yet once more.

SRFI's are not necessarily portable to all implementations.  But
before SRFI 50, when that happened, it was because some
*implementations* are too simplistic to be able to implement the SRFI.

SRFI 50 is the first time that it is the *SRFI* which is too
simplistic to be implemented on all Schemes.

It is as if you wrote a srfi which presumed that you could compare any
two numbers with <.

Thomas