On 2020-10-11 10:39 +0200, Daphne Preston-Kendal wrote:
> 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?)

Right.  There's no reason a split couldn't be made when/if the SRFI is
added to R7RS-large.  And yes--doesn't cond-expand with lexical syntax
get us into the abyss of phasing, anyway?

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

Oops, Daphne, I would like to have CC'd you in my response to John
discussing the status of a possible split.  I didn't mean to exclude
you, but I responded in haste.

Regards,

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"Eventually, I decided that thinking was not getting me very far and
it was time to try building." --Rob Pike