On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:51 PM Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

In 3.10, the expression to convert timespec into inexact seconds appears to
be missing close parentheses for car and cdr.

Thanks, fixed.
But I feel that it's better to have timespec as an implementation-dependent
data structure, rather than a pair of integers. 

Originally it was.  But then I realized I would need it in my date-time SRFI, which I am
also working on, and it was important for them to interoperate.  Using a
record type would make it awkward for different implementations of 170
and date-time to interoperate, since define-record-type always creates a new
record-type whenever it appears.  I suppose I could go with a record that
can be converted to and from a pair, but it seems unnecessary.
We already have timespec-difference and timespec=?, which are technically unnecessary
we do specify timespec is just a pair.

I realize that what we want is not = but a comparator.  Time difference is valuable, though.
   To add (make-timespec seconds nanoseconds),
(timespec? timespec),  (timespec-second timespec) and (timespec-nanosecond timespec),
we can leave the concrete data structure of timespec to implementation's choice.

That is certainly not hard if the interoperability concern is overcome. 

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
How comes city and country to be filled with drones and rogues, our highways
with hackers, and all places with sloth and wickedness?
                --W. Blith, Eng. Improver Improved, 1652