Am Fr., 10. März 2023 um 22:19 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler <[email protected]>: > > 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.
I don't think that the text of SRFI 240 (which is to be finalized) depends on any possible last-minute changes to SRFI 237. SRFI 237 won't be changed in a way so that it becomes incompatible to SRFI 240 (that is, incompatible to R7RS records). [...] > 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 If my memory serves me right, these have all been addressed. The only reason why I haven't asked for the finalization of SRFI 237 yet is that I would like to give the lexical syntax additions to SRFI 237 a bit more time to mature as this is a non-local change to the standard. Thanks, Marc > > As always, I will supply an archive of those messages upon request.
