>     Please elaborate on the reason. Would we run into problems if we tried
>     to specify a super-minimal contract about what guarantees present and
>     future keyword systems provide to help SRFI writers?
>
> A SRFI has to be implementable and usable as written.  It has to give
> specimens of procedure calls that will actually work for users, and its
> sample implementation has to be based on procedures and syntax that
> actually exist.  An abstract description is not sufficient.

The contract would give specific guarantees heeded by all keyword
systems, as well as a reference syntax to use in SRFIs and other
specifications. Note that this is different from SRFI 177 which has a
reference _implementation_. The contract would not have one.

> (Below .sig chosen at random from my list; no personal reference intended!)
>
> That you can cover for the plentiful and often gaping errors, misconstruals
> and disinformation in your posts through sheer volume -- that is another
> misconception.

lol. It's apt. I find that volunteering to be the dumb person in a group
is often the fastest way to get the group to solve a problem. And at the
very least it raises the others' self esteem, which also makes the group
more productive :)