Per Bothner scripsit:

> However, I'm scared of adding yet another library with dozens of procedures.

Because there's no separate underlying data structure, it's not expensive
from the implementation point of view -- most systems probably won't be
able to improve on the portable implementation.  Conceptually, of course,
there's a cost, but not if you don't look at it!

> I would rather we work to standardize some kind of loop library.

I expect that something in the nature of foof-loop or SRFI 42 will serve
this role.

> So I think this API should go on the back-burner, and we should instead
> focus on a looping API - keeping generators as part of the latter.

Writing up foof-loop would be very useful.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part that cooks with lard and goose
fat, the part that cooks with olive oil, and the part that cooks with butter.
  --David Chessler