--- "Schol-R-LEA;2" <scholr1@comcast.net> wrote:

My 2p below...

> To start with, I was wondering if there was a general
> consensus as to what
> sort of things would and would not be suitable for
> defining in an SRFI.

I think just about anything is appropriate.  If others may
benefit from it, it is suitable for a SRFI.

> To what extent is elegance and appropriate style and
> idioms important?

Reasonably important.  If you want a language with every
crap idea under the sun there is Perl... *duck* (Perl isn't
THAT bad but it makes an easy target)

> Do SRFIs have a political or proselyting role

Of course.  It may not be official but they certainly have
influence.

> For example, suppose I were to propose (as I may well do,
> if it is suitable) an SRFI for a simple collection of
> iterators and conditional forms along the following
lines:

I have little need for these (except maybe when and unless)
and find some of them distasteful but if there is a
reasonable justification you could propose it.  Many found
the generic SRFI (17?) distasteful but it got finalised
none the less.

> would it be seen as valid to
> offer a common 'wrapper' interface for FFI forms... An
> object system... A standard
> set of OpenGL bindings?

These all seem useful to me.

I'll let others answer your remaining questions.

HTH,
Noel

=====
Email: noelwelsh <at> yahoo <dot> com
AIM: noelhwelsh

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail