This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Hi David, "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I think we're done with SRFI-105! Please post ASAP if there is some > really important problem with the specification as posted. Unless I > hear otherwise soon, we're done. > > My sincere THANKS to EVERYONE who commented on the spec or otherwise > worked on it! I appreciate all your time. > > At this point, I hope that Scheme implementations will consider > implementing it in their default distributions. My thanks to those > who have already started this process. The latest draft looks good to me. I have written and posted a full implementation of SRFI-105 on guile-devel@xxxxxxx, and expect it to be deployed in Guile 2.0.7. I hope that other Scheme implementors and users will read SRFI-105 with an open mind. In my experience, seasoned Schemers (and Lispers) tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to any infix proposal, assuming that it will destroy the special properties of s-expressions that make them superior to other syntaxes. That is _not_ the case for SRFI-105. It is a well designed syntax that deserves your consideration. Thanks to David and Alan for working so hard on this, and to all those who participated in the drafting of SRFI-105. Regards, Mark