Before you write a sample implementation, please explain why you want to deviate from R6RS in the first place. We haven't seen any compelling example where this would be helpful. As long as there is none, this deviation is a gratuitous incompatibility and places a burden on implementers using existing expanders (that actually check for the correct use of first-class continuations). Besides, I do find this part of the SRFI 245 far less compelling than the original R6RS semantics (it is not very natural to group expressions with a definition that probably has nothing to do with the expressions).
Am Mo., 4. Dez. 2023 um 11:15 Uhr schrieb Daphne Preston-Kendal < d...@nonceword.org>: > On 30 Nov 2023, at 06:47, Arthur A. Gleckler <s...@speechcode.com> wrote: > > > If you're interested in this SRFI, please give your feedback via the > SRFI 245 mailing list before 2023-12-06. After that, assuming that no major > revisions are required, we will declare it final. It is important that we > get your feedback before 2023-12-06. If that deadline is too soon for you, > but you would like to contribute, please let me know so that I can extend > the last-call period. > > Dear Arthur, > > Please extend the last call period by two weeks. > > I would like to try to come up with a ‘sample implementation’ as MNW puts > it (that will assume a body has been fully expanded and do the ‘fixing > letrec*’ conversion on it for efficient code, when definitions and > expressions are intermingled), and also potentially address criticisms > arising on the mailing list of SRFI 251, that this SRFI is not sufficiently > clearly specified or some such. (I make no guarantee on the last point, > because I don’t understand why people think 251 is clearer to begin with, > but if someone explains to me such that I can express 245 more clearly, I > will try to improve 245.) > > > Daphne > >
