Hi Richard,

We editors like your suggestion.  Many thanks for coming up with it!

Now if we could only get Marc to jump in ...

Let me add a few comments:

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@research.nj.nec.com> writes:

Richard>  - It may be difficult to implement either version of SRFI 0 in the
Richard>    presence of a module system.  This is certainly the case with
Richard>    Scheme 48.

Actually, I have an implementation of our suggestion for Scheme 48 :-)

There's one change you suggest which we're not happy with:

Richard> Unlike the proposed COND-IMPLEMENTS, the implementation has no
Richard> leeway in choosing which clause to use (down with ambiguity!).

We bounced this around quite a number of times among the editors.  I
don't know how to better support our case for leaving in the ambiguity
than what's already in the suggestion:

> The COND-IMPLEMENTS construct specified here gives Scheme
> implementations more flexibility in implementing it.  The
> specification is intentionally ambiguous as to which clause will be
> expanded in a COND-IMPLEMENTS form.  This is in order to allow Scheme
> implementations to choose an especially convenient (fastest/least
> memory-intensive/...) combination of implementations.

My co-editors may add more comments to this, but this is definitely a
concern we share.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike