This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 17 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 17 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Per wrote: > The examples that follow, however, are all of the shape > (set! (procedure-name ...) ...) That *is* a procedure application. I guess the correct R5RS terminology is that the first set! operand can be a "procedure call". The question is not whether this is a procedure call (believe me I know some Scheme) but which class of "procedure calls" you want to admit. From the other remarks in your response, it seems you don't mean procedure call at all but something that looks like a procedure call but only for some small set of procedures (car, cdr, string-ref). At least you didn't bring address-of calculations from C. Also, there are Schemes out there that implement define-syntax. It seems to me that what you want to add can be implemented in define-syntax, tested, and posted with a test suite. Others have done something like this. ;; --- Would it be too much to ask for a R5RS-style specification of SRFI's that extend/modify Scheme's core syntax and semantics? I can see that SRFIs that propose a collection of functions are specified by implementation and description. I would like to appeal to the SRFI editors to impose a simple standard in this regard. If there were a possibility to submit a meta-SRFI, I would do so now. -- Matthias