Re: [Schematics-development] srfi-0 and srfi-7

[Michael S. <sp...@in...>]

>>>>> "Neil" =3D=3D Neil W Van Dyke <ne...@ne...> writes:

Neil> I think there should also be no reason, in a language with Scheme's
Neil> syntactic power, that I can't have a single source code file that
Neil> captures decisions I have made about how to get it to work well wit=
h
Neil> different extensions of several Scheme implementations.

All I'm saying is that SRFI 7 isn't a good way to do that.

Besides that, I'm not sure why it needs to be a single source file.
It's customary and good practice in other languages to encapsulate
platform-specific stuff into clearly identifiable, separate entities.
I believe that what you suggest, in the long run, leads to
hard-to-maintain software.  I've sure seen a lot of that in practice.

Is this a political statement?  I don't know.  It does relate to
design.  I would like the appearance of SRFI 7 to denote "here comes a
piece of code written in R5RS + SRFIs."  That's something of technical
usefulness.

--=20
Cheers =3D8-} Mike
Friede, V=F6lkerverst=E4ndigung und =FCberhaupt blabla