Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2026 um 15:42 Uhr schrieb Jakub T. Jankiewicz
<xxxxxx@jcubic.pl>:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 19:56:53 +0700
> Andrew Tropin <xxxxxx@trop.in> wrote:
>
> > The most heated discussion so far was regarding assertion naming, `is`
> > syntax in particular.
>
>
> If name of "is" the most problematic. Let's make a compromise and make a
> way to define it yourself.

Well, that's what the library system is for. :) If you don't like
`is`, you can use `rename` with the `import`.

It makes no sense to add another layer.

By the way, the library system allows adding prefixes but does not
allow removing prefixes, so in case of doubt, the library should
export identifiers without a prefix.

>
> e.g.:
>
> (define is (make-....))

You can't redefine syntax in this way. You would need `alias` (SRFI
212) for a completely transparent redefinition (that also works with
literal matching as auxiliary syntax).

Marc