Hi, Arthur-- Well, I am fairly new here myself (and have no idea what difficulties might be involved in implementing your proposal), but here's my tuppence:
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Arthur Maciel <[email protected]> wrote: > It is clear that Scheme/Chicken values informative names for procedures > (call-with-current-continuation, call-with-values, with-input-from-file, > etc.). Wouldn't it be more informative to (use lists) instead of (use > srfi-1) or (use hash-table) instead of (use srfi-69)? Sounds good in principle. I have no particular thoughts about the specific names you propose. > These SRFIs could provided as eggs. The data-structures unit could be > dissolved and its procedures spread according to the new specified unit. So > these new units could contain the SRFI and more. That might not be such a good idea. I believe the rationale for the SRFI system is to provide a *portable* way to extend the language. 'SRFI-plus' libraries would tend to create confusion as to what is portable. At the very least, the documentation for such eggs would need to be very clear as to which functions are from the SRFI and which are extra. -- Matt Gushee _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
