Re: porting SRFIs to PLT

I still think that my current porting is right.
SRFI-45 redefine "delay" and "force" of R5RS.
"promise?" is obviously related to "delay" and
"force".

The key point is: R5RS doesn't define "promise?" but
MzScheme do.

Actually my port just provide two interface. (require
(lib "43.ss" "srfi")) provides "delay" "force" and
"promise?" (and others) whose semantics agrees with
those of MzScheme. (require lib "lazy.ss" "43" "srfi")
provides "s:delay" "s:force" and "srfi-45-promise?",
for use inside a module.

--- Michael Sperber
<sperber-jNDFPZUTrfQQDnmTUQnR1uqEdJ8o/[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> "Noel" == Noel Welsh <noelwelsh-/[email protected]>
> writes:
> 
> Noel> Does anyone know what the convention should be
> here?  I
> Noel> can't think of anything.
> 
> Yes; check SRFI 1.
> 
> "<nn>.ss" shoudl just export the identifier as
> defined in the SRFI.
> For the named import, you can do what you like.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers =8-} Mike
> Friede, V&#39944;kerverst&#37592;digung und
&#40666;erhaupt blabla
> 
> 


Sincerely,
Zhu Chongkai
http://www.neilvandyke.org/mrmathematica/


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 


-------------------------------------------------------
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