Well, it's not like the spec is written in stone (yet). I've thought of
the stub idea, but I believe that it is really ugly and unnecessary.
Since there is no change to the semantics, couldn't the WG have some
remedy (perhaps unanimous consent) to fix this issue before the standard
is fully petrified?

Arthur
On 11/13/12 6:00 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Arthur Smyles scripsit:
>
>> Both read-error? and file-error? are currently part of (scheme
>> base). Since both the read procedure and file procedures are in
>> separate libraries and are optional, it does not make sense to make
>> these 2 procedures required. I propose that read-error? be part of the
>> (scheme read) library, and that file-error? be part of the (scheme
>> file) library.
> That is an *excellent* idea, and I only wish we had thought of it.
> Unfortunately, I have to say that it just comes too late in the process.
>
> Fortunately, implementations that don't have the read and file libraries
> can easily use these stubs:
>
> (define (read-error? x) #f)
> (define (file-error? x) #f)
>

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