Re: [Chicken-users] SRFIs 11, 12, and 15

[felix winkelmann]

On 1/2/06, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> The decision to withdraw or finalize is in the end solely in the hands of
> the proposer.  If you do implement a withdrawn SRFI, I see no reason not
> to represent that you do so -- if my code does in fact depend on SRFI
> 12, I should be able to portably write (require-extension (srfi 12))
> at the top of my code without provoking an error on a system that does
> in fact implement it.

So shall it be then (darcs head, 2.218).

>
> What's the difference between SRFI 11 and what Chicken provides?
>

IIRC, only 'let-values' is SRFI-11 compliant (contributed by Reed
Sherida, but not
'let*-values'. But changing the implementation of the latter to use the former,
we should get it compliant. I'll fix this.


cheers,
felix