On 2021-06-21 21:21 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> Am Mo., 21. Juni 2021 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <
> xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>:
>
> > On 2021-06-21 19:52 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> > > An optional SUCCESS continuation (defaulting to the values procedure) is
> > > missing with 'fxmapping-find'.
> >
> > Stet.  Though slightly asymmetrical with -ref, this is the same as in
> > SRFI 146 and 125.
> >
>
> What is "Stet" supposed to mean?

"Let it stand", https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stet .

> That it is missing in SRFI 146 and SRFI 125 is a mistake there. (When I
> wrote SRFI 146, I simply copied it blindly from SRFI 125 and haven't
> thought about it.)

And, in turn, I copied it blindly from SRFI 146.

> The main point is not so much symmetry with "-ref" but that "-ref" needs it
> for the same reason as "-find".

Is there a use-case for a success continuation that you think is
compelling?  It seems somewhat extraneous in both contexts.  The
failure continuation will often raise an exception of some sort, in
which case we don't need a success continuation.

I suppose my point is that the 'success' continuation should just
be the current one.

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

"It is better to forget time altogether.  Time plays no role at the
fundamental level of physics." --Carlo Rovelli