Hi! I see. Thanks, that is what I did so far as well : )
Best regards, Zelphir On 10/24/19 6:01 PM, Nala Ginrut wrote: > Personally, I prefer srfi. But sometimes I mix with RnRS. > I think it's better to avoid Guile specific things, however, Guile > provides many good things that the standard doesn't have. > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:56 PM Zelphir Kaltstahl > <zelphirkaltst...@posteo.de <mailto:zelphirkaltst...@posteo.de>> wrote: > > Hello Guile Users! > > I have a question regarding usage of SRFIs in Guile code. > > Sometimes there are core functions, which are also available from an > SRFI implementation. One example I am currently dealing with are > bitwise > operations for integer numbers. There is SRFI 60 and there are the > core > functions like logand, logior and so on. > > Usually I tend to think, that using the SRFI implementation in such > situation is better, as it is an implementation of a common interface, > which other Schemes might also have implemented. Using that makes code > more portable to other Schemes. However, I want to be sure, that > this is > a good way of thinking about it. Are there ever arguments against > using > an SRFI implementation, when an SRFI implementation provides what > I need? > > Another example are structs. I usually use SRFI 9 to make some > structs, > instead of the core record or struct type. > > What do you think? > > Best regards, > > Zelphir > >
