[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] SRFIs 11, 12, and 15
From: |
felix winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] SRFIs 11, 12, and 15 |
Date: |
Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:39:27 +0100 |
On 1/2/06, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> 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 If you do implement a withdrawn SRFI, I see no reason not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.
So shall it be then (darcs head, 2.218).
>
> What's the difference between SRFI 11 and what Chicken provides?
>
IIRC, only 'let-values' is SRFI-11 compliant (contributed by Reed
Sherida, but not
'let*-values'. But changing the implementation of the latter to use the former,
we should get it compliant. I'll fix this.
cheers,
felix