On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:56 PM, John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
Alex Shinn scripsit:

> [...] Otherwise #4, fork maximally, renaming in favor of
> consistency with SRFI 1 and R7RS.

I think by #4 you mean #3.

Oops, yes.

(All that said, the inability, given a Scheme procedure, to determine
*anything* about its calling protocol is a definite weakness/restriction in
Scheme that ought to be removed, though I have no idea how at the moment.
Arity inspection solves part of the problem, but wouldn't be sufficient here.

Big can of worms, intrusive core implementation change.
Best to leave this out of R7RS.