> So, in conclusion, I don't think leanness and simplicity is
> sacrificed by making SRFI 0 more elaborate.  I think making SRFI 0
> more elaborate is necessary to make it sufficiently useful.

At this point I think we really need more input from others and
particularly implementors.  As I have said before SRFI-0 is at the
heart of the SRFI process so we need to have something that has
widespread acceptance.  My views can be bent if I see that enough
people want a particular form (multiway conditional, support for
"and", "or", "not", etc).

So I send a plea to everyone: if you have a view on this subject now
is the time to voice it.

Marc