> ;;;     rs +srfi.1 portable-listy-program.scm
> ;;;
> ;;;  the portable-listy-program will find (if-implements SRFI-1 t)
> ;;;  expands to t.
>
> Does that match fairly well a superset of your idea as to what a SRFI-0
> compliant implementation should do?

Yes that is perfectly compatible with my view of SRFI-0 and SRFIs in
general.  However, I think it would be best to use:

     rs +SRFI-1 portable-listy-program.scm

so that SRFI names are used in a consistent manner.

To the SRFI editors: you should touch up all the documents on
srfi.schemers.org so that they use a consistent naming scheme (perhaps
even for the mailing list names).  For example, I've seen these
variants in different places: "SRFI-0", "SRFI 0" and "srfi-0" (I hope
you standardize on the "SRFI-0" notation).  Also, there should be a
slot in the SRFI document for the SRFI name and a slot for an alias.
For example if SRFI-1 becomes popular then you could attribute the
alias "extended-list-operations" so that if-implements calls are less
obscure, i.e.

  (if-implements extended-list-operations A B)

Marc