Re: porting SRFIs to PLT

> Because I find that SRFI-17 redefined "set!" and provide
> it without any renaming.

Yes, SET! is defined in SRFI-17.  Thus as a programmer, when I import
SRFI-17, I'll expect SET! in my code to refer to the SRFI-17 version
of SET!.

If I wanted to use different versions of SET! at the same time, I
could use the module features of my Scheme implementation to rename
one or the other.

However, PROMISE? is not defined in SRFI-45.  Thus, as a programmer
using the SRFI implementation, it would surprise me if I asked to use
SRFI-45 and it also redefined other identifiers such as PROMISE? that
are not part of the SRFI.

Therefore I recommend providing SRFI-45-PROMISE? but not PROMISE?.

Then if in my own code I wanted PROMISE? to refer to SRFI-45 style
promises, I could use the module system to make PROMISE? an alias for
SRFI-45-PROMISE? if I wanted to.

Thank you for implementing SRFI-45!

Andrew Wilcox


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.
Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4
opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to
win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20