Re: guile -s is it necessary?

[Rob Browning]

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> This isn't the best thread to say this in, but ...
>
> In general, I think we should _not_ jump to implement every SRFI that
> gets through the process.  Unfortunately, IMO, the level of review in
> that process is not always top quality, and it is too easy for
> anything to get through if the author just pushes enough.

Makes sense, though if we can do it in a way that isn't hard and
doesn't break things on our side just to be compatible, then providing
compatibility in some form probably wouldn't bother me.  That's why in
this case I was leaning toward the separate name (if we did anything).

I do agree, though, that we shouldn't feel compelled to implement
every SRFI, and perhaps that applies for this one -- I'll have to go
look at it again -- all I recal ATM is that from the previous
discussion, a separate executable seemed preferable to trying to
integrate its requirements with our current command line and #!
practices.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD