"Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <xxxxxx@web.de> writes:

> Artyom Bologov <xxxxxx@aartaka.me> writes:
>
>>> sph-sc style is supported by the implementation, but not part of the
>>> SRFI. While I like it, and while it might enable rest arguments (though
>>> my experiment with implementing them failed today), it is also more
>>> error-prone.
>>
>> I see. Is there an extension space in the SRFI that’d accommodate that
>> syntax?
>
> (define-typed (f a) (ret? arg?) a)
> (define-typed (f a) ((-> ret-list?) arg?) (values a))
> (define-typed (f a) ((-> ret? ret?) arg?) (values a a))

I now implemented this in the reference implementation, but did not
write it in the standard to avoid making it too complex.

Is there a standard for optional extensions of SRFI’s?

Best wishes,
Arne
--
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
https://www.draketo.de