> It should be where the `thunk` is captured. I'm not sure if I understand
> what you meant correctly. Could you maybe give me a clear example why
> this needs to be clarified?

I see now that it has to be at timer-schedule!, but you should still
say that the thunk runs in the dynamic environment of the call to
timer-schedule!

> You mean `make-timer` and `timer-start!`?

Yes, I meant that.

> The reason why I've added the time object is that it can handle nano
> second. If users want to make smaller unit of period, then at least the
> SRFI can handle it. Or it might be better to let the integer represents
> nano second instead of milli second. Any opinion?

I think milliseconds is fine.  I just don't want an explicit dependency
on SRFI 18/19 here.  So integers or implementation-defined things,
which could be SRFI 19 time objects or something else.

> The idea behind this is that if other process (not thread) want to stop
> a task, then it needs to be a readable datum.

That's a good point.  I withdraw my request.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
Pour moi, les villes du Silmarillion ont plus de realite que Babylone.
                --Christopher Tolkien being interviewed by Le Monde