For some reason I've been averse to them, perhaps for good reason other than their distinction from the racket libraries. I began working with scheme/racket relatively recently, so I probably do not fully appreciate the historical rationale behind them. (I do fully understand the need for backwards compatibility)
I'm often left wondering, "If this is useful, why isn't it included in the common racket libraries?" What is the official stance on using SRFI modules in new applications? On 2012-03-27, at 1:46 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > Rodolfo Carvalho wrote at 03/27/2012 03:27 PM: >> Actually, I wonder if people use any srfi much? > > Some people still use SRFIs with Racket (I don't anymore), but usually Racket > has somewhat better comparable features separate from SRFIs, either built-in > or in PLaneT. > > There are at least two matrix packages in PLaneT, by the way. Plus some > "scientific" PLaneT packages that I imagine might include matrices. > > Neil V. > > -- > http://www.neilvandyke.org/ > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
