I've just published draft #5 of SRFI 144.  It was submitted
by John Cowan, author of the SRFI.

<https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-144/>

I'll repeat John's comments from his earlier message
about this draft:

  Everyone, please comment, especially on issues #1 and #2:

  1) Should the arithmetic procedures that accept
  arbitrarily many arguments (fl=, fl<, fl>, fl<=, fl>=,
  fl+, fl-, fl*, fl/, flmax, flmin) arguments be switched to
  two-argument versions, with supplementary flneg and
  flrecip as the one-argument versions of fl- and fl/? This
  would improve dispatch efficiency on some implementations.

  2) The procedure name fl+* uses Scheme order, whereas the
  function name fma uses C order. Should the Scheme version
  be changed to fl*+?

Here's the diff:

<https://github.com/scheme-requests-for-implementation/srfi-144/compare/8ca93687d6daccd3123e7c539d610855990494ea...c74653a9c93d3117cefede33502814f3b105f006>

Regards,

SRFI Editor