On Sun, 9 Aug 2020, at 11:49, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> Three more things:
>
> (1) The library (srfi 197) should export "<>" bound to auxiliary
> syntax. SRFI 197 should contain a sentence saying that in a Scheme
> system supporting as well SRFI 26 and/or SRFI 148 the identifier "<>"
> is always bound to the same auxiliary syntax so that one can easily
> import more than one of these SRFIs into the same module. The same
> would apply to "<...>", but see (2).

And specify that if srfi-26 is included in whatever scheme it is written for, they should use the same bindings.

>
> (2) I would suggest replacing "<...>" by "<> ...". This makes the code
> more readable and needs less new auxiliary syntax. We can always
> create an amended SRFI 26 that will use "<> ..." instead of "<...>".
> This would be in line with SRFI 148 as well.
>
> The example
>
> (chain (a) (b <> c <...>) (d))
>
> would become
>
> (chain (a) (b <> c <> ...) (d))

That seems like a great idea, and even more enforces the idea that it is a macro. What the srfi-197 describes is not really akin to <...> in cut/cute, and as such I don't believe srfi-26 needs replacement.

>
> (3) Before the final finalization, I'd like to invite everyone to a
> brainstorm about a good, but less misleading name of this SRFI because
> this SRFI is not about expression chaining operators but about
> procedure call chaining.

How about just chaining? It is not necessarily about procedure call chaining either.

/Linus Björnstam