Michael Sperber wrote:
> I don't know what exactly characterizes your notions of "base
> language" and "library."

I understood that R6RS would be organized into a base language and a set
of library modules. So, to me, the base language is what you have if you
do not import any library modules.

> If "base language" means "what's needed to
> build the other stuff," then that would clearly mean that the flonums
> need to be in it.

No, I do not mean that. I mean, "what's exposed to the programmer by
default".

> If you mean "library" means something that an
> implementation may or may not support, then see the rationale of the
> SRFI why that wouldn't be a good idea.

No, I do not mean that. I mean, "what the programmer has to explicitly
import".

Whether bits of the library are optional is another matter. I can see
arguments both for and against it.

> If you think that SRFI 77
> should really be made available in R6RS as a set of library modules
> rather than just one big blob for organizational reasons, then I fully
> agree with you---we just didn't have the methodology to do it when we
> wrote the draft.  I'm hoping we might have it once we get to putting
> stuff into R6RS.

Yes. My biggest dislike of SRFI-77 is more to do with exposing these
routines in the base language rather than pushing them off into the library.

Regards,

Alan
--
Dr Alan Watson
Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica
Universidad Astronómico Nacional de México