John Cowan quoting me:

> > SRFI 128 is already final, so we can't fix it.
>
> We can, in fact.  We have already issued minor errata for other final
> SRFIs, and while this is more than minor, it is a less drastic change than
> I have already proposed for SRFI 113, namely to use SRFI 128 comparators
> rather than SRFI 114 comparators throughout.  If there is no objection
> from the SRFI 113, 114, or 128 mailing lists (so far there is none),
> the SRFI Editor has already agreed that a post-finalization note will
> be added to the Status section of SRFI 113.
>
> A similar note for SRFI 128 might read as follows:
>
>     *Post-finalization note*:  Because of the extremely high cost of
>     conforming to the first and third conditions of `default-hash`,
>     implementers may disregard those conditions and examine only a
>     bounded portion of the argument.

IMO that would be the best solution.  Thank you.

Will