Am Fr., 24. Apr. 2020 um 08:52 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:

[...]

> Though it is a joke, it's also a serious observation. The ten Scheme
> implementations listed in the 177 rationale with their own native
> keyword systems are not going to drop those systems if R7RS-large (or
> 177) specifies an incompatible system. Instead, they will add the new
> system as an alternative to their existing one. That proliferation will
> add more code and documentation to the implementation, and users' Scheme
> code will have to choose which keyword system to use at the cost of
> compatibility with the other one.

I am not skeptical about this observation. But this is orthogonal to
the question I raised, I think.

> The precise amount interoperability achieved on a technical level is
> everything in the Specification section of SRFI 177. Everything that can
> be written using those tools (lambda/kw, define/kw, call/kw) is fully
> interoperable with the native keyword systems of all Schemes listed in
> the rationale.

You seem to use the term "fully interoperable" in trying to explain
what you mean by "interoperability". I am still not convinced that
this means much for all practical purposes.