This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
Alan Manuel Gloria scripsit: > Perhaps we'll clarify in the SRFI that an implementation *must > not* provide `nfx` (with the exception that a *future* SRFI *may* > mandate that implementations provide `nfx` at some level). -1 An implementation might, for example, want to provide nfx as a macro which looks for user-written precedence definitions and does the Right Thing with them. This ought not to be forbidden. Just like any other identifier provided by an implementation, the user would be free to redefine it, after all. -- Don't be so humble. You're not that great. John Cowan --Golda Meir cowan@xxxxxxxx