Sounds like a good idea, and I am all for it. I've added and pushed a description of either-guard.
On 2020-07-10 18:33 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:50 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <
> firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It is unfortunate that this isn't being resolved by some rationale
> > argument. You gave an argument about iterating over a list of thunks
> > but that has been defeated.
> That was an example rather than an argument. But what can I say? You
> believe your view is better, I believe mine is, and no one else is saying
> anything. Since it's my SRFI, I end up making the final decision.
Why not have both, the macro and the procedure?
The example of call-with-values suggests that, if people use a
thunked procedure frequently, someone will eventually add a dethunked
form. Since such a form has been proposed and uses basically
the same implementation as the procedure, we could save someone a
future SRFI and add it now.
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <email@example.com>
"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is
about telescopes." --pseudo-Dijkstra