> "Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <arne_bab@web.de> writes:
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>>>> Why should Wisp be a separate package when other SRFIs are made part
>>>> of Guile?  Your point about maintenance and evolving applies equally
>>>> to other SRFIs.
>>>
>>> That’s a good point.  Making it available as (srfi srfi-119) would make
>>> sense I guess.  I need to take a closer look…
>>
>> That’s where the documentation and tests are located:
>>
>> - test-suite/tests/srfi-119.test
>> - doc/ref/srfi-modules.texi::5666:@node SRFI-119
>>
>> The language implementation is in (language wisp) because that’s in the
>> language search path.
>
> Given the complexities in changing the way languages are handled (the
> required discussions, as we’ve seen in the not yet resolved discussion),
> would you be OK with keeping the question about adding support for
> SRFI-119 to Guile separate from the general discussion about language
> handling?
>
> Are there improvements needed besides the ones I did thanks to the
> review by Maxime or is this good to go?

I created a new (squashed) version of the patch to simplify reviewing: