On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

Were fxquotient and fxremainder left out intentionally?

They'll be in the next draft, which will come out after SRFI 151 (the replacement for 142), which is almost done.
 
Is it worth supporting hypothetical non-twos-complement implementations?

Frankly, my dear, I don't *care* about people who want to run Scheme on their Unisys ClearPath Dorado mainframes.  They typically pay per CPU cycle, anyway.  The IBM 360 (1964) and the DEC PDP-1 (1963) were already 2's complement when the remote ancestor of the Dorado, the Univac 1100, came out.
 
What's the rationale for having some procedures (inequalities and min/max)
n-ary, but others (arithmetic and bitwise operators) strictly binary?

Backward compatibility with existing Schemes, especially R6RS.  N-ary arithmetic operations could provoke overflows at unspecified points as well, so they are not really associative.  I suppose the bitwise operators could be made n-ary. 

-- 
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        xxxxxx@ccil.org
Well, I have news for our current leaders and the leaders of tomorrow:
the Bill of Rights is not a frivolous luxury, in force only during
times of peace and prosperity.  We don't just push it to the side
when the going gets tough.  --Molly Ivins