Hi Eli,

Eli Barzilay <xxxxxx@barzilay.org> writes:

> 30 minutes ago, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>>
>> I agree that it's unfortunate to destroy the symmetry between
>> 'eager' and 'delay', but I see no way to support multiple values
>> without either destroying that symmetry or breaking compatibility
>> with SRFI-45.
>
> IMO, having a good, uniform API is *far* more important than keeping
> `eager' a function. [...]
>
>> If you can suggest a better way to add support for multiple values
>> that is compatible with SRFI-45, I'd be glad to hear it.
>
> Write a new short srfi which will say "same as srfi-45, except that
> `eager' is a macro", then add multiple values.  Seriously.

Having thought more on this, I've come to agree with you.  It's a
mistake to bend over backwards to remain compatible with SRFI-45.
It's more important to promote the best API we can come up with.

Users wouldn't be able to rely on SRFI-45 having my proposed extension
anyway.  I think we will abandon this proposed extension for Guile, and
leave SRFI-45 alone.

Maybe it _is_ time for a new SRFI.

     Thanks,
       Mark