I stumbled with a few names:

arity -  Is it widely accepted to refer to the number of values of an expression as "arity of an expression"?   The first thing that
  comes to my mind when I see "arity" is the number of arguments/operands a procedure takes.  (And in fact, PLT and Gauche
  uses "arity" to get the information from a procedure; arguably "procedure-arity" is a clearer name for it, though.)
  If not, I'd like a bit more specific name, even it's more verbose.  E.g. expression-arity.
  
identity - Yes, it is identity (in multiple-value sense), but we already have values.  The procedure "identity" is frequently defined
   as one-argument, one-value procedure and at least Gauche adopted it.   Conceptually it can be argued that multiple-value identity
   is a natural extension of 1-1 identity, but having 1-1 identity is sometimes useful for a simple-minded optimization.
   I don't strongly suggests identity should be 1-1, but since we already have values, I don't feel the need to use another name, neither.

compose - At least Chicken, SISC and Gauche has "compose", but application order is reversed; that is, (compose f g) is 
   (lambda args (call-with-values (lambda () (apply g args)) f)).  That order also corresponds to the mathematical notation
   of \( f \circ g \).    Srfi-210 uses reverse order for bind etc., so it's not desirable to change only for "compose", but I'd like
   to see it has a different name to avoid confusion.
   Srfi-210 compose is the same order as srfi-189's maybe-compose/either-compose.  In srfi-189 discussion I saw it
   as monadic function composition and didn't think of the conflict of existing "compose".  But srfi-210 is a head-on collision.
   Maybe we should give left-to-right composition a different name.





On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 6:49 PM Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:

I've just published draft #4 of SRFI 210. It was submitted by Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen, author of the SRFI.

Marc has asked me to announce last call for this SRFI. He believes that it is ready for finalization, but would like to give reviewers one last chance to submit corrections and feedback before we finalize it.

In particular, I appeal to anyone reading this to try the sample implementation, run the tests, and send feedback about your results.

If you're interested in this SRFI, please give your feedback via the SRFI 210 mailing list before 2020-12-05. After that, assuming that no major revisions are required, we will declare it final. It is important that we get your feedback before 2020-12-05. If that deadline is too soon for you, but you would like to contribute, please let me know so that I can extend the last-call period.

Here is the commit summary:

  • Improve typography.
  • Add reference to Ashley/Dybvig paper to explain the rationale for with-syntax.
  • Fix minor typos, mostly reported by Wolfgang.
  • Publish fourth draft.

Here's the diff:

https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-210/compare/draft-3..draft-4

Regards,


SRFI Editor