Peter Bex scripsit:

> What's the point of opening a ticket and then immediately closing it
> again?  Can you even *do* that without input from the other members?

It records that a formal comment was made in a way that's easier to
search than the mailing list archive.  Other members can reopen it if
they see fit.

> Also, there may have been no new *arguments*, but the fact it's a formal
> comment (complaint) from the community (and an implementer, no less)
> should hold some weight and shouldn't be dismissed offhand.

I didn't dismiss it out of hand.  That would have been "Nope, we already
decided otherwise."

> I think this deserves some more careful consideration.  Asking every
> implementation out there that already supports SRFI-4 to rename their
> procedures without a very good reason is obnoxious.

"Rename" implies that the old names go away, but it's only inside the
(scheme base) library that the R7RS-small names have to be visible.
In the REPL, (scheme base) must be imported, but so can other names at
the discretion of the implementation.

--
La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi                            John Cowan
Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi.              cowan@ccil.org
                --Abdullah al-Hazred, Al-`Azif      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports