Am Di., 22. Juni 2021 um 19:10 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>:

[...]

> I promise not to take another look at it so it can be finalized. :)
>
> (The only thing which I think that still should be fixed are the first
> paragraphs under specification. When you don't want to follow my proposal
> of using record semantics to get it right, we have to come up with
> something different that makes sense. At the moment, for example, it is not
> guaranteed that something like, say, '(fxmapping? (mapping
> fixnum-comparator))' returns false.)

I hope I can make it clear that I appreciate your work on this. I

Oh, please don't worry about this. For sure, I don't feel ignored by you, quite the contrary. You are always open to open discussions.

like this proposal, I'd like to discuss it further, and I hope we can
use it to make the type specifications of SRFIs more meaningful. I'm
simply not in favor of adopting it (in full strictness) for SRFI 224
at a late date without knowing the exact impact it will have. In
particular, I'd like to hear from more Scheme implementers as to what
it means for them.

I get this. What I meant in the quoted paragraph above was not so much that you should nevertheless adopt my proposal (although I am still convinced that it is the best we currently have) but that the wording in the latest draft (the same I chose for SRFI 146) should be replaced by something better regardless of any proposal I have made so far. At the moment, one can cross out the sentence and the abstract specification would hardly change. (I think the only guarantee we get by the sentence is that the fxmapping type is disjoint from the base types.)