Am Do., 24. Sept. 2020 um 23:58 Uhr schrieb Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>:

> This is an extremely confusingly named SRFI, which
> points at its unusual nature.

I am very open to a better name and would love to hear suggestions.

As for its perceived unusualness, we already have a number of SRFIs
that fix names (e.g. SRFI 97) to help writing portable programs.

> The usual thing would be to simply have a SRFI for
> ER macros, and a separate SRFI for syntax-case, etc.
> I suggest we do that.

We would end up with roughly 7 SRFIs, each of which would more or less
just consist of a list of identifiers.

The purpose of this SRFI is not to document each of the macro
subsystems extensively (which is already done elsewhere) but to make
them available for code that does not want to special-case each
implementation. Hopefully, a better name will make this more clear.

Marc

PS An advantage of a single SRFI is also that it can serve as a place
to discuss/document interoperability if a Scheme system ships with
different macro facilities.