I believe that there are benefits to SRFI-251 semantics over SRFI-246, and
they are presented in the proposal. Yes, SRFI-251 does allow recursive
procedure
definitions in a body (it has to, to be backwards compatible with Scheme
standards).
I also believe SRFI-251 is more true to "the Scheme nature", if making
correct
human judgements about the behavior of Scheme code is part of it.
That's how I see things, anyway.

On Saturday, December 2, 2023 1:11:27 AM (-05:00), Per Bothner wrote:

 > There are multiple Scheme implementations that implement SRFI-245
semantics.
 > Are there any that implement SRFI-251 semantics? Or planning to?
 > Is there any user demand for SRFI-251 semantics as opposed to SRFI-245
semantics?
 > Are there any benefits to SRFI-251 semantics over SRFI-246?
 > Does SRFI-251 allow recursive procedure definitions in a body? (SRFI-245
does.)
 > Is SRFI-251 is more true to "the Scheme nature"?
 >
 > As I see it, the answer to all of these questions is "no".

--
Sent with Vivaldi Mail. Download Vivaldi for free at vivaldi.com