Am Sa., 2. Dez. 2023 um 11:00 Uhr schrieb Daphne Preston-Kendal < d...@nonceword.org>:
> Here are some problems with SRFI 251: > > • It’s not what existing implementations do when presented with mixed > bodies; > > • It doesn’t map cleanly onto letrec*; > > • It’s compatible neither with the R6RS expansion order for all bodies, > nor with the R6RS top-level program body semantics; > > • If you insert a new line between definitions, the scoping rules suddenly > change. > +4 Moreover, I am somewhat puzzled that a new SRFI proposing essentially a > minor variant on SRFI 245 was accepted for consideration while 245 is still > in draft status, without this proposal having been made on the mailing list > there first to see if there was interest in taking it up. (True, 245 is now > in last call. But if this proposal had been made on the mailing list, it > would have been a reason to pause finalization until the discussion was > resolved.) > Nothing will be lost if the finalization of SRFI 245 is put on hold. Marc
