I would provide a version (of SRFI 231) with no safe? parameter
because everything is safe. The current consensus on the large
language is that it is safe in the sense that one mustn't be able to
crash the system by calling procedures of the standard libraries.
Should SRFI 231 become part of the large language, only the version
without the safety parameter should be used.

Am Sa., 29. Juli 2023 um 00:19 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler
<xxxxxx@speechcode.com>:
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 2:52 PM Bradley Lucier <xxxxxx@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> In a Gambit PR Marc Feeley commented "I would have created 2 variants of
>> the SRFI: (srfi 231) and (srfi 231 unsafe) so that ... by default you
>> get the type checks ..."
>
>
> That's a good idea. Since we can't change the default, I would recommend going further: Define (srfi 231), which has the default defined in the SRFI document; (srfi 231 unsafe), which is unsafe; and (srfi 231 safe), which is safe. That would be a reasonable thing to add as a post-finalization note.