On 30 Sep 2024, at 08:02, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

>  > In any case, to be accepted into the fascicle on records would require
> > support from at least 3 notable Scheme implementations by around this
> > time next year.
>
> If the proposal can be implemented in a portable way, this doesn't have to be the case, does it?

Yes, I meant if (as Antero suggested above) it were intended to become a core part of the ‘base’ of the record system.

> The problem I see with the N = 3 rule is that for each feature, it can be a different set of implementations, reducing the significance of this measure considerably.

The idea is not that N=3 means we standardize only what *all* large Scheme implementations already agree on. It’s that we have a minimum consensus from implementers that an idea is good, and a minimum amount of real-world experience before baking something potentially problematic into the core of the language.

Daphne