This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 111 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 111 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On 17 May 2013 19:09, John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Can I assume that means everyone on this list is entirely happy with > them exactly as written? Ghu knows, boxes are simple, which is why > I picked them as the first R7RS-large effort. But a little feedback > wouldn't hurt either. The spec seems good. I would personally make the lexical syntax optional, as it is (to my eyes) ugly and doesn't provide anything strictly necessary, which the rest of the spec does. It might be worth noting in the spec that the reference implementations do not implement the lexical syntax. I don't find any of the optional autoboxing functionality useful, and it slightly complicates the mental model of procedure calls, but overall it's probably appropriate in the spirit of a large spec. I don't really see the need to discuss the relation of boxes to promises in the spec. Cheers, -- David Banks <amoebae@xxxxxxxxx>