>>>     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).
>
> Ah, yes, that goal makes complete sense.

I also agree that Shiro's advice is wise. Let's make the procedure and
argument info optional in SRFI 170 (and naturally in 198 as well).

> John, what do you think?