"Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> writes:

> Sergei Egorov, author of SRFI 251: Mixing groups of definitions with expressions within bodies, has asked me
> to announce last call for this SRFI. He believes that it is ready for finalization, but would like to give
> reviewers one last chance to submit corrections and feedback before we finalize it.
>
> In particular, I appeal to anyone reading this to try the sample implementation, run the tests, and send
> feedback about your results.
>
> Note that SRFI 245, an earlier proposal in a similar vein but with important differences, has been withdrawn.
> Regardless of the status of each SRFI, both will remain public so that Scheme implementers can consider the
> ideas in both.
>
> If you're interested in this SRFI, please give your feedback via the SRFI 251 mailing list before 2024-05-01.
> After that, assuming that no major revisions are required, we will declare it final. It is important that we
> get your feedback before 2024-05-01. If that deadline is too soon for you, but you would like to contribute,
> please let me know so that I can extend the last-call period.
>
> Regards,
>
> SRFI Editor

Don't get me wrong, but I thing it would have been appropriate to
withdraw this srfi, just as srfi 245 was withdrawn, until the issues
raised in the discussion of the issues are fully resolved.

While it is certainly nice to add some imperative code at the beginning
of a procedure, in order to verify input, and in order to debug the
code, the (seemingly) main motivation behind this SRFI "look UP the
code" is not exactly widely used nowadays, after "define scan-out" has
been invented. If anything, the formulation should be "look UP the
translation PHASE" rather than "UP the code".

If strictly required, any sequencing of operations can be enforced by
the usage of nested lets.

That is just an opinion, of course.

--
Your sincerely,
Vladimir Nikishkin (MiEr, lockywolf)
(Laptop)