Per Bothner wrote:

>		     I suspect everybody has said their thing,
> and I don't think we will come to agreement on whether its
> a good idea or not.

I personally am disappointed that the proponents of this SRFI have
done little other than indicate it is good because it exists, while it
exists because it is good.  Matthias and others have repeatedly raised
objections to it, on the grounds that it conflates two distinct
notions, and these haven't ever been properly answered.  (A response
like "I don't like the idea of multiplying syntax gratuitiously" is
hardly an answer, because the problem here is not syntactic but
semantic.)  I had hoped for a better discussion on a SRFI.

But there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it, and the SRFI
process allows strategies such this to succeed in producing final
SRFIs.  I hope it won't be repeated, but those hopes do nothing to
address the status of SRFI-17.  Perhaps it's just best to close this
out without further ado.

'shriram, speaking strictly personally, not as an editor