Per Bothner wrote:

> Still, there are at least two Scheme dialects that *do* implement
> extended set!, so it seemed to make sense to make a srfi for it.

In the abstract, yes, it makes sense.  But you said the other
implementation is Guile, which (imo) isn't reeking of design taste.
Indeed, I hope the SRFI process can be just as fruitfully applied in
reverse: to use the discussions on SRFI lists to improve existing
Scheme implementations.

I would note that nobody from the Guile community has spoken up to
defend Guile's decision to add extended SET!, or addressed any of the
objections that have come up to it.  I'm CCing this message to Mikael
Djurfeldt, an active Guile proponent, in the hope that the only reason
we haven't heard from the Guile community is that nobody from there is
reading this thread (which would itself be sad).  Maybe he can track
down whoever added extended SET!, and get them to correspond.

'shriram