------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, May 17th, 2022 at 10:32, Panicz Maciej Godek <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Amirouche!Thanks for your feedback and sorry for a late response, but I've recently been overwhelmed with other things.
> I'll start by saying that I really appreciate your insight and the time you've spent to share it

Thanks, we need to share a meal or a drink at the next Scheme Workshop in September.

>
> sob., 7 maj 2022, 09:49 użytkownik Amirouche <xxxxxx@hyper.dev> napisał:
>
> > Both SRFI-204, and SRFI-200 prose looks bizarre. SRFI-204 dwell on examples uses, whereas SRFI-200 has a review of existing pattern matchers, and that makes hard to figure what must be implemented, and neither it is a good material for users of SRFI-200.
>
>
> I kind of agree, but I don't really know how to fix it.I agree that focusing on existing matchers goes a bit against the utility of the SRFI as a document which is meant to serve implementers.
> But I think that it is important from the point of view of adoption of the subset of syntax described in the document.
>
>
> >
> > re SRFI-200, what is the section of the document describing the recommended pattern matcher?
>
>
> There is a "Recommendations" section which describes that.Also, the document includes two reference implementations expressed in terms of the two most popular macro systems for Scheme, with quite elaborate explanations.
>

- It is called "Specification" in some other SRFIs;

> However, if you have any ideas about how the text could be improved, you're more than welcome to become a co-author.

>
> Best regards, Panicz

ref: http://www.schemeworkshop.org/
ref: https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-200/srfi-200.html