I meant no offense, and your contributions are valuable even if rejected, because they help me and others clarify their thinking. I hope you will continue to participate in this and other SRFIs.

In response to Harold: I can't of course veto future SRFIs. I simply don't want to take out the existing bare-bones support on the assumption that it will make it into a future SRFI (and thus into R7RS-large and/or actual implementations).

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 2:49 PM Duy Nguyen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:11 AM John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote:
> They are stripped to the bone right now, and I don't see any reason for stripping them further.

You've made your call. I don't see a reason to discuss any point any
further. Sorry for making you read 10 mails. I promise this is my last
one to srfi-170.
--
Duy