Re: srfi-18 requirements

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Julian,

"Julian Graham" <address@hidden> writes:

> All this kind of presumes that SRFI-18 is something that the Guile
> maintainers care about supporting.  Is it?  I'm afraid I don't know
> the Guile project's attitude towards implementing SRFIs.

I'm not sure there's an "official position" regarding this.  Personally,
I consider that it's always good to support more SRFIs, at least because
it makes Guile more directly usable by Scheme hackers.

I haven't looked in detail at SRFI-18.  Adding support for it should not
force us to introduce incompatible changes in the core API, though.
Specifying behavior that used to be unspecified might be acceptable, but
changing type predicates isn't, I guess.

Thus, you'd need to pinpoint what can be implemented without changing
the core API (e.g., do the SRFI-18 type predicates really require
changes in the core type predicates, or can they be implemented without
changing the core API?), what requires changes/additions in the core
API, etc.

Thanks,
Ludovic.

PS: BTW, I'll hopefully look at your patch sometime next week.