[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Scheme-reports] [r6rs-discuss] redefining eqv?

From: Peter Kourzanov <peter.kourzanov@x>
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv?
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:11:10 +0100

> On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 15:39 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>> Peter Kourzanov scripsit:
>> > > Peter, the better way to do the kind of thing you are looking for
>> > > is PARAMETERIZE.  I wouldn't advocate it for CASE, though.
>> > 
>> > Any pointers? Or is it the PLT/Racket thing?
>> SRFI 39.
> So, RRS's (fluid) redux (or shall I say Rabbit redux). Its so 
> well-hidden I didn't know it existed. Any plans on going back
> that for R7RS?

Is SRFI such an obscure, hidden thing?  Admittedly, referring to
individual srfi by number is a bit forbidding for newcomers, but
I've been thinking that popular(*) SRFIs are indispensable for
those who consider using Scheme seriously.

I'd prefer having a small core standard and rich SRFIs, but
opinions may differ.

(*) Which SRFI is popular?  This is a bit outdated, but you can
get an idea: http://practical-scheme.net/wiliki/schemexref.cgi/SRFI


Scheme-reports mailing list