Am So., 16. Aug. 2020 um 14:30 Uhr schrieb <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com>:
>
> > From: Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>
> > Date: Sunday, August 16, 2020 1:31 AM
> >
> >> I also don't like set, but consider it a placeholder for now, we should
> >> be able to come up with a better name.
> >>
> >> But before going to that effort, we have to agree on the need for it.
> >> If it's not mandatory, it's a */very/* different thing, and while
> >> "convention" is a synonym for me in context, "protocol" isn't particularly.
> >
> > IMHO the purpose of 'set is to give meaning to 'code/number and
> > 'name/symbol. 'code/number and 'name/symbol make sense without 'set, in
> > the same way that a grammatically correct but taken-out-of-context
> > sentence makes sense in English. It refers to something definite but
> > since you lack the context, you don't know what specifically.
> >
> > In that sense 'set is not technically mandatory yet is obviously useful.
>
> Thus we have incompatible visions for SRFI 198.

I have to admit that I haven't found the time to follow all
discussions thoroughly (and just looked locally at posts). So could
anyone of you describe in a few words what the current status of SRFI
198 is and why it is a must for SRFI 170? What is the problem with
SRFI 35 compound conditions, which equally pack various data into an
error object?