After the discussion on changes to SRFI 197, here's what I'm planning on doing for the next draft:

• Require a trailing `<>` for a final argument, rather than making it implicit... while I'm still not personally a fan of this, there was widespread agreement on it, and I understand the argument for consistency. I'll probably have to remove the rationale sections about terseness.
  
• Add the `nest` and `nest-reverse` macros. These will also require an explicit `<>` for the insertion point of each step.
• Clearly describe the distinction between `chain` (which is equivalent to `let*` and guarantees evaluation order regardless of argument position) and `nest` (which syntactically nests expressions). The current document describes `chain` as though it works like `nest`, but it doesn't.
  
• Export `<>` and `<...>` as auxiliary syntax, including a note to use SRFI 206 if it is available.
• Change the name again... I'm thinking either "Pipeline operators" or "Chaining operators".

There was some discussion about changing the argument placeholder from `<>` to `_`, or changing the rest-arguments placeholder from `<...>` to `<> ...`; I don't intend to make either of those changes, because I'd prefer to keep consistency across SRFIs where possible, and SRFI 26 already uses `<>` and `<...>`.