The sample implementation was never meant as an actual implementation of the libraries in this SRFI but as a proof of concept showing how to implement all the primitives on a small set of subforms. The sample implementation's library name does not coincide with any name that is defined in the SRFI text. The included testing code shows how to use and test the sample implementation.
While I agree that a sample implementation should be a portable implementation if possible (which is not possible in case of SRFI 226, but see the PS below), I have always had the opinion that sample implementations should almost never be used or included in Scheme implementations as-is but should be tailored to each Scheme implementation. SRFI means Scheme Request for Implementation and not Scheme Request for Copying, for a good reason, I think. PS: The module system of R6RS (whose semantics were mostly copied to R7RS-small), which is the main entry point of running a Scheme program in R[67]RS, has a limited expressiveness compared to what Racket (or even R5RS) offers. The R[67]RS model does not allow to hook into the primordial expander and evaluator (compare this with "#lang" in Racket or with the ability to override the bindings of system identifiers in R5RS), which makes it unclear how to turn the sample implementation of this SRFI into a proper implementation. (Similarly, SRFI 9 can be implemented in R5RS but not in R7RS (assuming it wasn't already) because it has to redefine "vector?".) Maybe it is not too late for R7RS-large to improve this situation considerably. This will also open the possibility to turn the module language of R[67]RS, which is currently language outside Scheme, into proper Scheme. Am Mi., 8. Jan. 2025 um 17:01 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler <s...@speechcode.com>: > > On 8 Jan 2025, at 11:27, Shiro Kawai <shiro.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The SRFI needs to intercept the evaluation mechanism, so it's not supposed >> to run as is in the bare REPL. > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 2:38 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal <d...@nonceword.org> > wrote: > >> >> This should really be noted in the ‘Sample Implementation’ section of the >> specification. > > > Marc, would you be willing to craft some text to this effect (or review text > written by someone else)? I can add it to a post-finalization note. > > Thanks.
