Please ignore this, my mistake. Sorry!

On 14/08/2024 08:33, Retropikzel (via srfi-253 list) wrote:
> I think the impl.generic.scm is missing a #t on the else branch of
> cond-expand on line 214?
>
> On 13/08/2024 22:13, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
>> Scheme Request for Implementation 253,
>> "Data (Type-)Checking",
>> by Artyom Bologov,
>> is now available for discussion.
>>
>> Its draft and an archive of the ongoing discussion are available at
>> https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-253/
>> <https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-253/>.
>>
>> 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 <mailto:xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org>.
>>
>> Here's the abstract:
>>
>>     Data validation and type checking (supposedly) make for more correct
>>     code. And faster code too, sometimes. And, in rare cases, code
>>     that's easier to follow than the un-checked one. Unfortunately,
>>     Scheme does not have many (type-)checking primitives out of the box.
>>     This SRFI provides some, with the aim of allowing more performant
>>     and correct code with minimum effort on the user side. Both (manual)
>>     argument checking/validation (|check-arg|) and return value(s)
>>     (|values-checked|) checking/coercion are provided. Syntax sugar like
>>     |lambda-checked| and |let-checked| is added on top.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> SRFI Editor
>>