On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:32 PM John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote: 
I don't personally want to put a lot of effort into the gratuitously changed, messed up, sloppily modified but at least it builds and largely works even on a 64 bit machine 0.7, but this is further pushing the bounds of a working implementation as required for the SRFI process.  Too much?

That is absolutely a SRFI Editor question, not for me.  This is the first time I've written an inherently non-portable SRFI, and I don't know where Arthur will set the boundaries.

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what I'm being asked to rule on here.  I've been following this discussion, but perhaps not well enough.  HGA, were you planning to do the implementation for SRFI 170?