[R6RS] SRFIs for R6RS

[dyb at cs.indiana.edu]

> > I guess you are right wrt syntax-case.  I remember that there were a  
> > few things that were left to discuss (identifier syntax, ...?).  In  
> > any case I think all SRFIs should be reviewed by the editors before  
> > submitting them to the SRFI editors.  Obviously the degree of review  
> > will vary (close to nil for Unicode on which there was high agreement  
> > at the Boston meeting, and more for syntax-case).
> I imagine that Kent meant that we did not formally agree on the fact
> to adopt SYNTAX-CASE more or less as it has been presently. That is, I don't
> remember that we did formally agree on the fact of using an ad-hoc
> pattern matching construction for macros. Kent, is it what you are referring 
> to?

I'm having trouble following your wording, but we voted on 5/26 to include
syntax-case essentially as it currently exists, with the current pattern
language intact.  We reaffirmed the decision on 5/27 when you brought up
the pattern-language issue again.  So we're down to a few minor issues
only, like adding a more general version of identifier-syntax.

Kent