Marc Feeley wrote:
>
> I agree that the API of parameters is not abstract, and that this
> could be improved with separate procedures (or syntax) for creation,
> mutation, reading and binding of dynamic variables.  I did not propose
> this because of the convergence by many implementations to the
> "parameters" API and I wanted to place minimal burden on
> implementors/users of this API.  Moreover, the main point of SRFI 39
> is to propose the "right" semantics for dynamic binding in the
> presence of threads.
>

I have to agree with Mr.Preprocessor, here. A "fresh" API would
make it much easier for implementors and users, alike.

One question: Gambit already has `dynamic-ref', etc. Wouldn't it make
sense to use that (or something based on it's syntax) instead of parameters?
The only implementations I know that provide this are Gambit (where
I don't know how this interacts with threads) and SLIB (which doesn't
have threads).

This looks like a possible alternative that could in fact please
anyone...

cheers,
felix