Re: SRFI inclusion

[Lassi Kortela <lassi@lassi.io>]

> A common interface would be nice, but designing good interfaces is not
> easy.  If somebody comes up with a good interface later, maybe it can be
> added post-hoc; not ideal, but should be doable with a layer of
> indirection.
> 
> What bothers me more, is that maintaining those libraries separately for
> each Scheme system doesn't scale.  It would probably be better to do it
> like they do it for the BOOST libraries.  Have one common code base that
> can be compiled with different compilers; possibly with implementation
> specific versions but maintained as part of the common code base by the
> people who use and care about the libraries.

I agree that the maintenance burden for practical Scheme libraries is 
growing too great for any one person or implementation. We've just been 
having discussions in this general direction on the #scheme IRC channel. 
Several people would like something like the SRFI process, but allowing 
for API evolution, with less stringent requirements to get the API 
design right all at once.