s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 13:40 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 15:15 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 15:56 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 16:19 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 16:32 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 17:54 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 18:07 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 21:27 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 21:36 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 23:03 UTC)
&key vs :key in the lambda list Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 23:17 UTC)
Re: &key vs :key in the lambda list John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 23:18 UTC)
Re: &key vs :key in the lambda list Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 23:27 UTC)
Syntax for hygienic vs non-hygienic keywords Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 23:33 UTC)
Re: allow-other-keys bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 19:51 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (29 Oct 2019 16:33 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 16:53 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 17:10 UTC)
Including 177 in s7? Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 17:34 UTC)

Re: s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx 29 Oct 2019 17:53 UTC

> If we manage to arrive at a SRFI 177 design that Scheme implementors
> are
> generally satisfied with, would you be willing to ship the macros with
> s7?

Yes.

> The current s7 implementation is a 27 lines, 5 lines of which is a
> `split-last` helper. So it's not huge but it'd be nice to find
> something
> even simpler.

It looked fine to me -- I'll stare at it some more.