Hi David,

"David A. Wheeler" <xxxxxx@dwheeler.com> writes:
> I think we're done with SRFI-105!  Please post ASAP if there is some
> really important problem with the specification as posted.  Unless I
> hear otherwise soon, we're done.
>
> My sincere THANKS to EVERYONE who commented on the spec or otherwise
> worked on it!  I appreciate all your time.
>
> At this point, I hope that Scheme implementations will consider
> implementing it in their default distributions.  My thanks to those
> who have already started this process.

The latest draft looks good to me.  I have written and posted a full
implementation of SRFI-105 on xxxxxx@gnu.org, and expect it to be
deployed in Guile 2.0.7.

I hope that other Scheme implementors and users will read SRFI-105 with
an open mind.  In my experience, seasoned Schemers (and Lispers) tend to
have a knee-jerk reaction to any infix proposal, assuming that it will
destroy the special properties of s-expressions that make them superior
to other syntaxes.  That is _not_ the case for SRFI-105.  It is a well
designed syntax that deserves your consideration.

Thanks to David and Alan for working so hard on this, and to all those
who participated in the drafting of SRFI-105.

   Regards,
     Mark