>> If we manage to arrive at a SRFI 177 design that Scheme implementors are
>> generally satisfied with, would you be willing to ship the macros with
>> s7?
>
> Yes.

Thanks a lot! A number of us are working to make portable Scheme a
reality, so this kind of support means a lot.

The various interrelated portability initiatives are all based around
R6RS and R7RS, for what it's worth. Your manual says s7 is close to R7RS
already, which is great. For portable libs, R7RS `define-library`,
`include` and `cond-expand` are quite crucial. Do those mesh well with
s7's goals?

>> The current s7 implementation is a 27 lines, 5 lines of which is a
>> `split-last` helper. So it's not huge but it'd be nice to find something
>> even simpler.
>
> It looked fine to me -- I'll stare at it some more.

The syntax may still change a bit; John advocates (keyword-lambda (a b
&key c d) ...) instead of (keyword-lambda (a b (c d)) ...). For s7 this
doesn't make much difference; it mainly troubles syntax-rules macros.