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.
On 10/29/12, David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I cannot imagine accepting a proposal at this point that would change the > *semantics* of SRFI-105; what's done is done. But I think we should > entertain fixes in the design rationale (since we want the rationale to be > right) and typos for just a few more days, and then declare that we're > done. > I was reading through Guile-devel and found this gem by Mark H. Weaver: http://www.mail-archive.com/guile-devel@xxxxxxx/msg10088.html Particularly the following exchange between Ludo' (>>) and Mark (>): >> It’s also unhygienic, in the sense that programs that need it would >> typically have to start with a definition of $nfx$ & co., although these >> identifiers never appear literally in the neoteric code. > >I agree that this is not ideal, but I see no way around it without >losing the benefits that these (optional) features are meant to provide. > >Apart from the fact that $nfx$ et are meant to be defined by the user, 8<--- snip! read it at the address provided above The explanation might look good in the design rationale. Sincerely, AmkG