Re: [Chicken-users] SRFIs 11, 12, and 15

[John Cowan]

felix winkelmann scripsit:

> That's right. SRFI-11 is not supported completely, and 12 and 15 are withdrawn
> SRFIs. Currently the policy is to treat withdrawn SRFIs as nonexistant,
> and following from that, not to register feature-ID's for them. If you think
> treating them like finalized SRFIs is a better idea, then I can change that,
> of course.

The decision to withdraw or finalize is in the end solely in the hands of
the proposer.  If you do implement a withdrawn SRFI, I see no reason not
to represent that you do so -- if my code does in fact depend on SRFI
12, I should be able to portably write (require-extension (srfi 12))
at the top of my code without provoking an error on a system that does
in fact implement it.

What's the difference between SRFI 11 and what Chicken provides?

-- 
I marvel at the creature: so secret and         John Cowan
so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool   address@hidden
before our very window.  Does he think that     http://www.reutershealth.com
Men sleep without watch all night?  --Faramir   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan