[plt-scheme] symbols redefined in SRFIs

From: Jens Axel Søgaard (jensaxel at soegaard.net)
Date: Mon Oct 23 18:02:25 EDT 2006

Dan Muresan skrev:
>> >>   (require (lib "list.ss" "1" "srfi"))
>> >
>> > [... at which point becomes clear to me that I'm again fighting a
>> > losing battle against an entrenched poor deisgn...]
>> I might be litle slow, but which language construct has a poor design?
> I was referring to the conflicts built into srfi-1. Again, I'm
> advocating just removing the non-SRFI-1 versions, or hiding them. Same
> for SRFI-43.
> I'm not debating conflicts in general, in case you were thinking of that...

So it just the decision to have R5RS-compatible functions (instead of
SRFI-1 compatible) as default in the mzscheme language you are
unhappy about?

Jens Axel Søgaard

Posted on the users mailing list.