Am Do., 10. Sept. 2020 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:

> 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.

I think it is frustrating when it appears that the rejection hasn't
taken the raised concerns into account.

> 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).

We have to wait for further SRFIs or clarifications anyway because I
don't see how to write portable code with fdos unless some actual
guarantees are made for some ports to actually have non-trivial fdos.
Most of the section 3.2 doesn't really read like a specification.

PS How can I find out whether (current-input-port) or
(current-output-port) is a terminal?