Re: Withdrawing SRFI 177 Marc Nieper-WiÃkirchen 18 Jul 2020 12:39 UTC
thank you very much for your effort. I think this SRFI was one of the
hardest pieces of work. Even though we do not see the finalization of
any ideas yet, I think the discussion has brought us considerably
As for a new SRFI, I would probably wait until we have some more
syntactic extension facilities in the language. Say, if identifier
syntax is voted into the language (which can likewise apply to
syntax-rules, er-macro-transformer or syntax-case), a new keyword SRFI
(aiming for R7RS-large) will have many more opportunities to shape its
syntax than SRFI 177.
What we could do in the near future is to specify things like
"let-optionals" or "let-keywords" and some other systems like Guile's
as SRFIs. These SRFIs would not necessarily be meant for inclusion in
R7RS-large but they would codify existing practice and can later be
referenced when we start the process for a new unifying keyword SRFI
Am Sa., 18. Juli 2020 um 07:08 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:07 AM Lassi Kortela <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I've come to the conclusion that I'd like to withdraw SRFI 177.
> That's too bad, but I understand.
>> I'll submit a final draft of 177 that:
>> - adds Chibi-Scheme's let-keywords to the rationale
>> - adds more detailed acknowledgements, in particular of Marc's heroic
>> contributions on the mailing list
>> - explains why the SRFI is being withdrawn and what to expect from
>> future ones
>> - does not change anything substantial in the specification.
> I will wait for your new draft before making the withdrawal official.
> I encourage you to wait a while before launching a raft of new SRFIs in this area. We have eighteen SRFIs in draft status right now, and I don't want it to become too hard for reviewers — or this editor — to keep up. Maybe just one at a time?
> Thanks for making such a strong effort to make keywords widely portable.