Thanks for this great compromise.

Am Sa., 11. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:
>
> Sounds like a good idea, and I am all for it.  I've added and pushed a description of either-guard.
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:55 PM Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-07-10 18:33 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:50 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <
>> > xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> 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  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>
>>
>> "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is
>> about telescopes." --pseudo-Dijkstra