Le Sat, 17 Jan 2026 11:28:30 +0100,
"Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <xxxxxx@web.de> a écrit :

Hi Arne,

Thank you for pointing the link to SRFI-105. I completely missed the
point. And I agree, the link is obvious.

Maybe an implementation of “$nfx$” is already existing. If this is the
case, we should check it before finalizing this SRFI.

> Hi,
>
> expr looks pretty useful
>
> It mentions srfi-105 (curly-infix) only as "not how we do it", though.
>
> But srfi-105 provides a way to extend it, and expr might fit right
> into that:
>
> > However, an implementation MAY provide one or more libraries that
> > when imported bind the “$nfx$” and/or “$bracket-apply$” symbols
> https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-105/srfi-105.html
>
> and
>
> > Forms with mixed infix operators and other complications have
> > “$nfx$” prepended to enable later processing, e.g., {4 + 5 * 6} ⇒
> > ($nfx$ 4 + 5
> > * 6)
>
> So by implementing expr in terms of a macro named $nfx$, there would
> be good operability between expr and curly-infix and expr would
> provide richer semantics to curly-infix.
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne