Am Fr., 10. März 2023 um 22:19 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler
<xxxxxx@speechcode.com>:
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 1:10 PM John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think that since this SRFI depends on SRFI 237, it should not be finalized until SRFI 237 is.  I wouldn't object to running the last-call periods concurrently.

I don't think that the text of SRFI 240 (which is to be finalized)
depends on any possible last-minute changes to SRFI 237.  SRFI 237
won't be changed in a way so that it becomes incompatible to SRFI 240
(that is, incompatible to R7RS records).

[...]

> Note that there are four unresolved threads on the SRFI 237 mailing list:
>
> Deprecations considered harmful
> Truly unifying R6RS and R7RS
> Generative and nongenerative record types
> Addressing the concerns voice in SRFI 99

If my memory serves me right, these have all been addressed.

The only reason why I haven't asked for the finalization of SRFI 237
yet is that I would like to give the lexical syntax additions to SRFI
237 a bit more time to mature as this is a non-local change to the
standard.

Thanks,

Marc

>
> As always, I will supply an archive of those messages upon request.