There is one issue still open; unfortunately, I just noticed that I
didn't send the email to the list but just to Wolfgang.

I have now forwarded it.

The problem is still the indexer constraint, which doesn't help a lot.
Another thing is that the error condition of numeric-range is
numerically unstable. To solve this second problem, the end argument
should just be interpreted as an upper bound, not a bound that is
exactly reachable in the next step. With this change, (numeric-range
0.0 2.5 1.0) would stand for the sequence 0.0, 1.0, 2.0.

Am Mi., 26. Aug. 2020 um 20:59 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler
<xxxxxx@speechcode.com>:
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:51 AM Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> What work remains to be done on SRFI 196?  The last substantial changes
>> were made over three weeks ago, and the ML has been pretty quiet since.
>>
>> Marc suggested[1] that range-indexer could be allowed to return opaque
>> objects.  Is there anything else that still needs to be discussed?
>
>
> The only unanswered (in a sense) message about SRFI 169 that I have noted is Vladimir Nikishkin's request for a list of references.  John asked him to contribute one, but he didn't reply, so I don't think we have to wait on that, although a list of references would be nice.
>
> I haven't done my final review (that doesn't happen until you call for finalization), but in my notes on the 15th, I wrote that SRFI 196 looked ready.
>
> What do you and John think?