On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 3:21 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <[email protected]> wrote:
SRFI 237 is supposed to be a conservative refinement of the R6RS > record facility. In that case it would be helpful to say so, and to only document the non-RnRS features, since (rnrs records) will already be part of R7RS-large. It's also unclear why you have any library other than (srfi 237 syntax); if you want procedural records, you can simply import (rnrs record procedural). I was also going to add that the warnings should be changed to errors, but I agree that if you want full backward compatibility that doesn't make sense.
