On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:

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.

In SRFI 139, you mention that Guile and Racket also implement syntax parameters. What do they and Rocket scheme, the three implementations you mention, do with respect to this proposal? I want to understand whether this change would make the SRFI reflect current practice or whether it would introduce a new feature not implemented elsewhere.