xxxxxx@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> Jim Blandy <xxxxxx@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > As long as SRFI's of both sorts become available within the next year,
> > the right thing will happen.  I don't think it's necessary for SRFI-50
> > to be withdrawn until a more opaque SRFI is written.
>
> What confidence do we have that the more opaque SRFI will be written?
> (Are there people working on drafts now?)

Well, if SRFI-50 turned out not to be what I was hoping, and I didn't
come to my senses quickly enough, I was going to turn <minor/minor.h>,
into a .texi file, start a SRFI from that, and see what people said.