I would like to see SRFI 240 finalized soon.

It has been proposed to further amend the SRFI 9 syntax to bring it
feature-wise on par with the native R6RS/SRFI 237 syntax.  So far, no
one has suggested a convincing syntax extension (in the spirit of SRFI
9), so unless those interested speak up again, I have to drop this
feature request.

Thanks,

Marc

Am So., 6. Nov. 2022 um 01:19 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler
<xxxxxx@speechcode.com>:
>
> Scheme Request for Implementation 240,
> "Reconciled Records,"
> by Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen,
> is now available for discussion.
>
> This SRFI was split off from SRFI 237, which was formerly known as Reconciled Records
>
> Here are Marc's comments on the draft:
>
> SRFI 237 started as a proposal to unify the R6RS and the R7RS define-record-type syntax into one form.
>
> Now, after three drafts, the scope of SRFI 237 has been extended quite a bit. Now, it is not only about unifying the syntaxes but also about refining the R6RS record-type facility.
>
> To structure things, I would therefore like to [split] SRFI 237 into SRFI 237 + SRFI [240], where SRFI 237 is only concerned with the refinement of the R6RS record-type facility and SRFI [240] is about the unification of the define-record-type syntaxes.
>
> Its draft and an archive of the ongoing discussion are available at https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-240/.
>
> You can join the discussion of the draft by filling out the subscription form on that page.
>
> You can contribute a message to the discussion by sending it to xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org.
>
> Here's the abstract:
>
> This SRFI defines a version of the define-record-type definition of R6RS and SRFI 237 that extends the define-record-type syntax of R7RS, reconciling both systems.
>
> This SRFI is meant to be adopted by R7RS-large to integrate essentially the R6RS record system compatibly with the existing R7RS-small record system.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> SRFI Editor