On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:26 PM <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com> wrote:

it is a big topic itself and I'd like to discuss it separately. Right now it's hard for me to see the rationale to require those info *only* for srfi-170 (or, foreign errors if we include srfi-198).

So you're thinking of expanding the scope beyond SRFI 198? That indeed makes a lot of sense, but it's hard to see how it would avoid an indefinite delay in finalizing SRFI 198. As in, while perhaps not quite a "boil the oceans" goal like a universal FFI, how do you think you could keep it from becoming a very big and invasive to existing Scheme implementations effort?

My intention is rather to split srfi-198 from generic debugging/inspection interface (but not assuming the latter is possible). Specifically, scheme-procedure and args optional (at least for srfi-170).