On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 1:10 PM John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that since this SRFI depends on SRFI 237, it should not be > finalized until SRFI 237 is. I wouldn't object to running the last-call > periods concurrently. >
That makes sense. Marc, what do you think? Note that there are four unresolved threads on the SRFI 237 mailing list: - Deprecations considered harmful - Truly unifying R6RS and R7RS - Generative and nongenerative record types - Addressing the concerns voice in SRFI 99 As always, I will supply an archive of those messages upon request.
