Per Bothner scripsit:

> I think it may make sense to define one or more library functions to
> massage the arguments - for example concatenating the components of the
> literal part.  These would be to make it combine the argument list - or
> example combining the literal part to a single string-valued expression.

Such an API would be an excellent addition to this SRFI, though not
strictly necessary.

> What do you think of ($construct$:foo ..) instead of the rather ungainly
> ($quasi-value-transformer$:foo ...)?

I like it much better.

> Kawa has a few of these. For example CLASSNAME? becomes an instance test,
> and NNNUNIT (e.g. 2.5cm) becomes a "quantity" (number-with-unit).

I like those a lot.

--
John Cowan  xxxxxx@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
The penguin geeks is happy / As under the waves they lark
The closed-source geeks ain't happy / They sad cause they in the dark
But geeks in the dark is lucky / They in for a worser treat
One day when the Borg go belly-up / Guess who wind up on the street.