Hello to Marc and to the SRFI 226 list,

Given the subtlety of the forms described by this SRFI, I think it's
important that it eventually include formal semantics.  I don't mean
to suggest that the informal specification isn't clear; there's simply
a great deal that an implementer can get wrong, and formal descriptions
of at least some of the SRFI 226 forms might be a significant help.

I'm aware that I'm suggesting a lot of additional work, and I don't
yet have sufficient understanding of SRFI 226 to go off and write
the semantics myself.  If the idea seems useful, though, I'm happy
to help.

Best regards,

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

"Every sufficiently good analogy is yearning to become
a functor." --John Baez