On 25 Jul 2021, at 10:39, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: > A general comment: Just as with the question of how to handle keyword and optional parameters in future Scheme standards (including R7RS-large), I would postpone finalizing any general generic method approach until after it has become clear what macro facilities R7RS-large will provide. I strongly agree, but the question of how a general generic method approach integrates with the specific case of dictionaries means we have to consider at least some aspects of it now, imo. Though perhaps the issues with e.g. alists and plists mean a SRFI 225-like approach with custom descriptors is better anyway in that specific case. John: Given the increasing number of issues hanging on it, perhaps we should vote on the formerly-Amber docket (whose central issue is syntax-case vs explicit renaming) next? That is notwithstanding that the formerly-Orange docket with portable numeric operations and various other portable proposals is now nearly fully SRFI’d up and ready to vote, and that a further delay may lead to more SRFIs with procedures accepting only one kind of dictionary instead of any dictionary type (which, again, we can fix later if so). The non-portable syntax docket is also nearly completely SRFI’d — we don’t have formal specifications for explicit renaming macros (cough, SRFI 211?), nor of the Racket/Gerbil syntax-case extensions I proposed (but they can be kicked down into a subsequent ballot if necessary), nor of Guile’s with-ellipsis which is necessary to support R7RS's extended form of syntax-rules in a syntax-case-based implementation (again, SRFI 211). I think it would be helpful to have an answer to these questions sooner rather than later. Daphne
