I would rather restart from scratch (using parts of the SRFI 204
document that won't go away, of course).
Okay, I understand.
Other projects currently have priority for me, though. As for a
pattern matcher, more important than the SRFI 204 matcher would IMO be
type-safe pattern matchers because they can express problems more
clearly. What I have in mind is a facility to define union types. With
each union type comes a specific matcher that can be used to
destructure values of the union type. This is usually what to do; one
generally doesn't want to destructure arbitrary types, what SRFI 204
offers.
That sounds interesting. I encourage you to submit that, especially once 211 and 226 are done.
It's a shame, though, that a widely used existing system isn't being standardized so that it can be used even more portably and widely. I wish we could find someone who would help carry this one forward.
I hope to hear from Felix soon.
Volunteers welcome!