[R6RS] proposed library/syntax-case changes

[Michael Sperber]

dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:

> I must have misunderstood.  I don't see how the set of available libraries
> can fail to be dependent upon what's actually installed on the target
> system, which might not even be connected to a network to be able to find
> and install additional ones.

My original proposal had this wording:

>> - Do we want to restrict the set of libraries available through
>>   `library-environment'?  My inclinication is to say that at least the
>>   library the reference to eval is in, and the libraries imported by
>>   it must be available, and more libraries can be made available
>>   through an implementation-specific mechanism.  (Which we'd strongly
>>   encourage implementors to provide.)  This way people can ship sets
>>   of libraries or applications containing calls to `eval' without
>>   having to include everything that's, say, in the development system.

http://scheming.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/r6rs/2006-April/001155.html

Which I intended to mean exactly what I take you to mean now.

To this, you objected strenuously.  (And if you track down my
follow-ups, you can see that they differed on exactly this point.)
This wouldn't be a problem in and of itself, if you hadn't convinced
me of your position in the meantime.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla