From: "Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen" <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de>
<p>
Therefore, the author of this SRFI now recommends that implementers ignore this extra requirement so that <code>(srfi 149)</code> may export a version of <code>syntax-rules</code> compatible with this SRFI and <code>(scheme base)</code> may exports another. Instead, it is recommended that implementations provide a feature identifier <code>srfi-149</code> in case the implementation of <code>syntax-rules</code> in <code>(scheme base)</code> has the semantics as specified in this SRFI.
</p>

Marc

My only objection is to the name of the feature identifier. I think it would be easy to misunderstand "srfi-149" as meaning the same as "(library (srfi 149))" in cond-expand. So I would suggest "srfi-149-compatible" or perhaps "srfi-149-ellipsis".

John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.org

If I have not seen as far as other giants, it’s because I have been

standing on my head. --Trond Engen