Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit:

> Would the authors please reply publicly with a brief update
> on the status of each SRFI?

SRFI 125 has three issues left:  bounds, salt, and the implementation.

For bounds, it's just a question of how to expose the default bounds:
a variable (simplest), a procedure (possibly slow) or syntax (fast
but awkward).  I'll think on that one.

For salt, I think I'll go with allowing salt to be passed to a hash
function, requiring it to be a negative exact integer, and not explaining
why.  This affects SRFI-128 hash functions too.

The implementation by Will Clinger isn't up to date, but it's just a
matter of whacking on it until it is.  Unfortunately, with so many irons
in the fire I don't have time to do that, and I doubt if Will does either.
Can we let it go through anyway, and hope to make the changes later?

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
If you have ever wondered if you are in hell, it has been said, then
you are on a well-traveled road of spiritual inquiry.  If you are
absolutely sure you are in hell, however, then you must be on the Cross
Bronx Expressway.  --Alan Feuer, New York Times, 2002-09-20