[plt-scheme] Re: Should PLT Scheme have two R6RS namespaces?

From: Grant Rettke (grettke at acm.org)
Date: Wed Mar 25 13:01:14 EDT 2009

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> On Mar 23, detmammut at googlemail.com wrote:
>> * see https://code.launchpad.net/~ikarus-libraries-team/ikarus-libraries/srfi
> What I also said is that dragging a big piece of code like that,
> rather than adapting existing code, is very problematic.

Why is it problematic for the R6RS SRFI implementation?

If the same R6RS SRFI codebase is used across all implementations; it
should be better exercised and tested.

It also doesn't mess with the PLT SRFI implementations which already work fine.

It isn't this simple, though, is it?

Posted on the users mailing list.