Technically, it is probably a new feature. However, it is a feature that should have been included in the original proposal. So if possible, I would suggest to consider it as a fix for an erratum to streamline the process and in order to keep the number of SRFIs reasonably bounded.

I would have to adjust the sample implementation, though, as it currently reports an error if a regular keyword is used with syntax-parameterize.

Marc

Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> schrieb am Sa., 29. Okt. 2016 um 17:45 Uhr:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
I would like to discuss the following amendment to SRFI 139:

Hi, Marc.  This sounds like a worthwhile proposal.  Would you consider it to be a fix for an erratum, or a new feature?  If the latter, it technically requires a new SRFI, although it could be a small one.

SRFI Editor
To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=o4MZN6VdNdloz3pqe9V77WiH09RSeBco