On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 22:45 -0400, Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
> | From: Derick Eddington <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
>  | Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:23:45 -0700
>  |
>  | On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 13:34 -0400, Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
>  | > SRFI-103 should have some text comparing SRFI-59 to SRFI-103 and
>  | > explaining why the conventions of SRFI-59 are inadequate to your goals
>  | > for SRFI-103.
>  |
>  | Thanks for pointing-out SRFI-59.  I just read it for the first
>  | time.  I need more time and sleep to think about it, but right now
>  | I'm thinking it probably is not a fit for this SRFI, and I probably
>  | can succinctly describe why in the document of this SRFI.  I'll
>  | return to this topic.  (Anyone, feel free to comment about this if
>  | you want while I wait.)
>
> I got a chance to look at SRFI-104, and SRFI-59 has relevance there.
> I posted comments to srfi-104@srfi.schemers.org.

I responded to those comments there.  People interested in SRFI 103 may
want to read my response because it relates to the design of SRFI 103.

--
: Derick
----------------------------------------------------------------