Re: Request for feedback on SRFI-126

[Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer]

Arne Babenhauserheide <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 09:58:32 schrieb Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı 
> /Kammer:
>> Exactly, I agree.  It should be noted though that some things can be
>> implemented purely as portable libraries, so there needn't be a Request
>> For Implementations to do it, whereas some other things, which I call
>> "fundamental" features, need to be supported by implementations, so they
>> need to be in the language specification or an authoritative SRFI.
>
> What is an authoritative SRFI? One which is available in most
> implementations?

Yeah, broadly speaking an SRFI that has wide acceptance, or is set out
to gain wide acceptance by means of being as uncontroversial as possible
and such.

> Best wishes,
> Arne

Taylan