Besides a missing sample implementation that does show how to implement the proposal efficiently (which the "other implementations" do not, at least not in a way that's obviously replicable), there is another important issue. It is described at the beginning of my post [1]: The deviation of the semantics of SRFI 245 from R6RS program body semantics was justified because they would solve a problem with first-class continuations in procedure bodies, but, in fact, SRFI 245 still has the same problem in principle as if the R6RS program body semantics were applied to procedure bodies.
As the design space is still not well understood, and there is no clear, universally acceptable solution (see also the competition by SRFI 251), I don't think that SRFI 245 is ripe for finalization. Instead, I would propose putting it on hold, even if this means procedurally that it will have to be withdrawn and later reactivated (under the same or some later SRFI number). Until then, other solutions for the problem of introducing local bindings without too many indentation levels should be discussed. More and more, I have come to the conclusion that the addition of the local defines to Scheme added a wart to the language long ago. Marc -- [1] - https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-245/msg/23860760/ Am Mo., 22. Jan. 2024 um 05:38 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler < s...@speechcode.com>: > Re-sending from my SRFI editor email address: > > > Hi, Daphne. Have you had a chance to decide what to do about SRFI 245? > It reached 120 days today. > > I'm okay with having referring to other implementations for the sample > implementation, but Marc, at the end of the "Nit" thread > <https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-245/msg/23376366/>, felt strongly > that there should be one. It's up to you. >
