On 25 May 2024, at 13:23, Antero Mejr <xxxxxx@antr.me> wrote:

>> If this does happen, it will be specified in the Batteries, because the core
>> mechanism of identifier properties is already there in the Foundations. (This is
>> one Battery that implementations will likely want to adopt into their cores, so
>> that Foundations procedures etc. have interactive documentation available.)
>
> Can this be put into a SRFI, rather than being promised (maybe) for when
> Batteries is ready?

It will, eventually, but the Batteries in general are not my priority at the moment.

If someone else (hint, hint) wants to take either of these ideas and run with them and turn them into SRFIs, I actively encourage it. I would suggest that any here-doc alike notation should be a different SRFI to an identifier property-based documentation SRFI.

> There is no way to know of these consensuses without being involved with
> WG2 on IRC, which most of the Scheme programmers are not. I think it
> would be good if these ideas were communicated outside the group. I
> don't know the best way of doing that (besides SRFIs).

<https://codeberg.org/scheme/r7rs/issues>

I realize even these issues can be hard to follow, but there is a search engine to find discussion about particular topics. Where extended discussion seems to already have resulted in a form of consensus, I try to note this by editing the top comment in an issue.

Daphne

(apologies to Antero who gets this mail twice because I forgot to cc the list the first time)