xxxxxx@fernuni-hagen.de wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> I understand that this SRFI should be "an extremely simple facility".
> But we should discuss if there are any reasonable features that can be
> included without dropping this aim.

Sure.

>
> How about compatibility checks for extension combinations?
> For example, some SRFIs are (or will be) incompatible with each other.
> Should require-extension report an error if incompatible extensions are
> requested?
>

Hm. But what's an incompatible extension? Two extensions may be incompatible
on one implementation, but (perhaps) not on another. Would you have
a specific example in mind?

>
> Some comments for the draft text:
>
> "REPL": resolve this acronym (in parentheses) because SRFI-55 will be used
>   by Scheme beginners, too.

Agreed, I will change that.

>
> "An implementation claiming to support this SRFI must support
> require-extension in at least one context."
> What does "context" refer to? interactive vs. non-interactive?
> This sentence seems to be moved away from its original context :-)

Yes. Perhaps "scope" should be used instead of "context".

>
> "an srfi": "a srfi"?
>

Someone more proficient in english than me will have to answer that...

cheers,
felix