Am Sa., 2. Dez. 2023 um 18:37 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler < [email protected]>:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 9:23 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> Back to technical issues: In what sense do you think it matches the >> experience at the REPL? At the REPL (leaving syntax definitions and >> expansions aside, which are problematic to get right at the top level >> anyway), a mutually recursive definition can be separated by as many >> expressions as possible. This is the SRFI 245 semantics (and the semantics >> of program and library bodies). >> > > I took my editor's hat off only briefly, but only in support of the idea > that having competing proposals is reasonable. It's important that, as > editor, I bite my tongue. I am confident that a good outcome will come of > the discussion. > I am asking you in your role as a Scheme user. :) As such, you made an argument in favour of SRFI 251, which I don't understand. It is a question about Scheme, not about politics or the SRFI process.
