I quickly generated a preliminary table to get a feel of how it would
be like.

https://github.com/schemedoc/srfi-metadata/blob/master/table.html

> On 19 April 2020 20:18 Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> wrote:
>
> SRFI support is complicated by the fact that an implementation can
> either have a particular SRFI built into it; ship with the SRFI as a
> loadable Scheme library; or rely on a third-party package to provide it.
> For example, Chez and Chicken are two implementations that have very few
> SRFIs built in but a very large collection available separately
> (Chicken's collection is all the eggs named srfi-*, and Chez's
> collection is chez-srfi by @arcfide).
>
> (In principle, an implementation can also support a particular SRFI only
> on particular platforms. Or SRFI support could be turned on and off with
> build time options. However, I'm not aware of any cases like this
> currently.)
>
> In practice, schemedoc should also have a package index of Scheme
> libraries other than SRFIs. (We already have a pretty comprehensive
> scraper at <https://github.com/schemedoc/packhack>, it just needs to be
> polished and plugged into a general organizing backend.) Akkuscm.org and
> Snow-Fort.org also provide easy-to-read package metadata.
>
> Once we have the package index, we can somehow auto-detect which of
> those packages implement SRFIs, and which implementations they run on.

Yeah, I only opted to include SRFIs that are built into the stdlib of
each implementation. I think we could mark third-party SRFI support with
the colour yellow on the table.

Either way, there needs to be more work put into it. I'll go through
all these sources once I can and update the data we have thus far.

~erkin