Here are a few comments on SRFI 134 Draft 7 (of 2016-04-12).

  * (minor) ideque constructor: unnecessary '[ ... ]' metasyntax
    (given usual interpretation of '...')?

  * (minor) ideque-add-front: Is it significant that the bound
    specifically mention amortized here (given that the introduction
    notes that as an option for all bounds) but not elsewhere?

  * ideque-ref and other accessors: Is the index 'n' 0-based as it is
    for list-ref?  If so, the error conditions should read "n is not
    less than" instead of "n is greater than" (or some such change).

  * ideque-count: There seems to be some copy/paste error in the
    description.  (One sentence seems pasted in the middle of
    another.)

  * For the bounds in the Mapping section, is 'n' interpreted as the
    number of elements in the ideque argument, or something else
    ("number of elements involved")?  In particular, for
    ideque-append-map, if n is the number of elements in the ideque
    argument, the bound seems problematic to me.

  * I noticed from some earlier messages that, in an earlier draft of
    the SRFI, procedures in the Mapping section (ideque-map, etc.)
    accepted multiple ideques but are now limited to single ideques.
    I'm not sure of the motivation for the change.  It would be nice
    to allow multiple ideques, by analogy with SRFI 1 but perhaps
    there are some implementation issues that are more compelling
    here.  I'm not sure and would be glad for any clarifications.

Regards,

-chaw