Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>>"less typing" is not the main reason ....
>
>
> It was important enough for you to mention twice, and it's one of the
> only things your proposal seems to offer over SRFI-7, so it looks like a
> key point to me.

Well, then you are wrong. I mentioned several other points and mentioned
them countless times.

>
>
>>what also applies is that it doesn't require another pair of parens
>>(i.e. toplevel forms aren't toplevel anymore).
>
>
> What? SRFI-7's PROGRAM form does not change top-level forms any more
> than a top-level BEGIN does. You're blatantly misrepresenting SRFI-7
> here.
>

I either need a separate file or I need an enclosing form.
With "toplevel" I mean s-expressions at the outermost level, not
nested inside other s-expressions. Now, is that clearer?

>
>>A very basic little issue, agreed, but why not make things easy?
>
>
> Why not spell "create" as "creat"?
>
> It looks to me like there's an even more basic issue: You don't
> understand SRFI-7.
>

I probably understand it more than you do. I have in fact implemented
it once. So please beware of false assumptions.

>
>>How many syntactic issues are not aesthetic? SRFI-55 is a
>>*user-interface*, of course it's intended to be more aestethically
>>pleasing.
>>
>>Moreover, I'm absolutely convinced that several, if not the majority
>>of Scheme users (yes, even newbies count), will find it more natural
>>and convenient.
>
>
> Produce them, then. What you believe is irrelevant.

Huh? Look at some existing Scheme implementations, say, guile, gauche,
PLT, chicken, they all use some form of REQUIRE. I'm a pretty regular
reader of c.l.s and of several Scheme mailing lists, and I can't remember
hearing any complaints about it. I haven't heard anybody screaming for
SRFI-7 either.

>
>>Because most implementations already provide it (albeit under
>>different names).
>
>
> You're using a strange definition of "already provide it" there.

In what way is it strange? REQUIRE, USE, USE-MODULE - it's all there.

>
>
>>SRFI-7 appears to be unpopular among Scheme implementations, so I
>>consider it a failure.
>
>
> And your solution is to provide a technically inferior version of the
> same facility?

Your definition of "technically inferior" is strange. Ask PLT users
whether they find REQUIRE is technically inferior.

cheers,
felix