First, a small change under 'General Design Principles':
"Programmers doesn't" -> "Programmers don't"

Second, I was using the 'Comparison of Proposals' table when adapting
some R6RS code to use SRFI 151.  The table is a natural "translation
guide" but there are a few potential pitfalls which could be flagged in
the table.

In particular, in R6RS:

a. bitwise-bit-count has a different behaviour for negative numbers to
bit-count

b. (bitwise-bit-set? bitwise-copy-bit bitwise-copy-bit-field
bitwise-rotate-bit-field) all have a different order of arguments in
R6RS to the definitions in SRFI 151.

I suggest adding one or more marker symbols or the use of italics for
these R6RS names in the table to warn readers.

SRFI 60 definitions appear to map across seamlessly.

If you like the suggestion I can look at the previous columns too.

--
Peter Lane
http://peterlane.info/scheme.html