On 11 Oct 2020, at 10:25, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:

> This sounds like a not so good idea as it reduces the applicability of
> cond-expand. This only works as intended when implementations
> implement the full SRFI and not just parts of it.
>
> Splitting of SRFIs into two parts is an easy solution because then you
> can test with (library (srfi 207)) and, say, (library (srfi 207*)).
>
> Marc

In R7RS they could have different names. (scheme bytestring-notation)
and (scheme bytestring), for instance. (But does cond-expand even make
sense for reader notation? Surely it’d cause a reader error in any
case?)

Since my two co-authors seem to be against a split, I’m holding off on
it unless there are compelling new reasons.

Daphne