Am So., 13. Sept. 2020 um 15:27 Uhr schrieb Felix Thibault
<xxxxxx@gmail.com>:

> Yes (and yes). This has been in the back of my mind as one of those issues I haven't addressed and I wanted to let you know where I was, and also make sure I was understanding which pattern was the expression and which the pattern in your original post.

Okay. My argument raised in this thread was not directed at the SRFI
204 pattern matcher, not at the "FHD" matcher individually; just at
the basic claim of SRFI 200 that both matchers have a common subset
that is, in principle, sufficient.