Hi Arthur, hi y’all,

I’ll be extremely happy to hear y’all’s feedback on this SRFI. Some
things that I’m mulling over:

• Is there maybe a better name for derive-check?

• Is there any need to derive type of data with derive-check or its
  specialized sibling? Right now derive-check infers the return type of
  the expression, and not type of the expression as data. I.e.:

(derive-check '(+ 1 2))
;; => number?
(derive-check-data '(+ 1 2))
;; => (check-pair-of? (check-eqv? '+) check-any?)
;; Or whatever

• Is adding new auxiliary syntax (check? and check-impl?) to
  syntax-rules too much? I feel like this is too radical of a change and
  there must be a better way to achieve type-guarded macros. One such
  way would be syntax-case + derive-check, but there’s no counterpart
  for syntax-rules that’d work as well.

• Should there be a generic check-collection-of? checking predicate, or
  is that optimizing for the wrong thing?

• check-container-of? for boxes and the like?

• Should check-list-of? and check-vector-of? specify length? How do you
  imagine the signature for these predicates?

• Is there a need for check-unspecified? predicate? It kind of is a type
  too…

But these are just my own doubts and questions, yours might differ!

Best of love,
--
Artyom Bologov
https://aartaka.me