Am Fr., 18. Juni 2021 um 22:33 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe < [email protected]>:
> On 2021-06-15 22:52 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > > For R6RS implementations of fxmappings, the UID as specified in the SRFI > > could be used (which would be no problem because the UID would be > > well-known). In principle, a specific implementation could choose some > > other, arbitrary UID (unique in the sense that it does not clash with any > > other assigned UID, e.g. a UUID-4) or even a generative record > definition, > > but I don't see any advantage in doing so, only the disadvantage that the > > Scheme system then wouldn't be able to warn you if you tried to load two > > different implementations of fxmappings into the same running Scheme > system. > > If it's useful for systems that have R6RS records or something > similar, then I'm glad to add it. I can't see how it could cause > problems for other implementations, in any case. > NB: While it can be of use for R6RS systems, this wasn't my main motivation to refer to the R6RS semantics. I mainly did because it provides exactly the semantics we have been trying to express and because it is already specified, so it can be added to future (and retroactively to earlier) SRFIs without any dependencies (besides Scheme semantics published in official standards).
