Re: Let's complete by Nov 1, 11:59pm EST Alan Manuel Gloria 29 Oct 2012 02:46 UTC

On 10/29/12, David A. Wheeler <> wrote:
> I cannot imagine accepting a proposal at this point that would change the
> *semantics* of SRFI-105; what's done is done.  But I think we should
> entertain fixes in the design rationale (since we want the rationale to be
> right) and typos for just a few more days, and then declare that we're
> done.

I was reading through Guile-devel and found this gem by Mark H. Weaver:

Particularly the following exchange between Ludo' (>>) and Mark (>):

>> It’s also unhygienic, in the sense that programs that need it would
>> typically have to start with a definition of $nfx$ & co., although these
>> identifiers never appear literally in the neoteric code.
>I agree that this is not ideal, but I see no way around it without
>losing the benefits that these (optional) features are meant to provide.
>Apart from the fact that $nfx$ et are meant to be defined by the user,
8<--- snip! read it at the address provided above

The explanation might look good in the design rationale.