I would like to see SRFI 240 finalized soon. It has been proposed to further amend the SRFI 9 syntax to bring it feature-wise on par with the native R6RS/SRFI 237 syntax. So far, no one has suggested a convincing syntax extension (in the spirit of SRFI 9), so unless those interested speak up again, I have to drop this feature request.
Thanks, Marc Am So., 6. Nov. 2022 um 01:19 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler <[email protected]>: > > Scheme Request for Implementation 240, > "Reconciled Records," > by Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen, > is now available for discussion. > > This SRFI was split off from SRFI 237, which was formerly known as Reconciled > Records > > Here are Marc's comments on the draft: > > SRFI 237 started as a proposal to unify the R6RS and the R7RS > define-record-type syntax into one form. > > Now, after three drafts, the scope of SRFI 237 has been extended quite a bit. > Now, it is not only about unifying the syntaxes but also about refining the > R6RS record-type facility. > > To structure things, I would therefore like to [split] SRFI 237 into SRFI 237 > + SRFI [240], where SRFI 237 is only concerned with the refinement of the > R6RS record-type facility and SRFI [240] is about the unification of the > define-record-type syntaxes. > > Its draft and an archive of the ongoing discussion are available at > https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-240/. > > You can join the discussion of the draft by filling out the subscription form > on that page. > > You can contribute a message to the discussion by sending it to > [email protected]. > > Here's the abstract: > > This SRFI defines a version of the define-record-type definition of R6RS and > SRFI 237 that extends the define-record-type syntax of R7RS, reconciling both > systems. > > This SRFI is meant to be adopted by R7RS-large to integrate essentially the > R6RS record system compatibly with the existing R7RS-small record system. > > Regards, > > > SRFI Editor
