On 2026-07-09 14:51 -0400, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote:
> I would say that, if an implementation has port positioning, then
> cyclic ports must be positionable.

Addendum: Then again, how helpful is this?  "If a Scheme implementation
supports X, then it must provide cyclic ports that support Y."  It
doesn't promise the programmer who's trying to write portable code
anything at all.

Maybe it's better to say only that cyclic ports *should* support
positioning?

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>