> PS: To be clearer: In the SRFI FAQ, there is a question "are SRFIs a
> discussion forum for preliminary ideas?", answered negatively. To me,
> SRFI 220 seems to be such an idea that the FAQ calls "amorphous". That
> doesn't make it a bad idea but I don't think that it is yet ready for a
> SRFI that (importingly!) interacts well with existing syntactic and
> semantic concepts and where the implementation strategy and the use
> cases are obvious.

I disagree with this - the proposal was complete, the design was
explicitly derived from examples of prior art, and there was working
code. I also designed it that way specifically because I think it
interacts well with existing concepts, and in particular better than the
other proposed solutions. but this is necessarily subjective.

However, I do agree with your conclusion that more work is needed, and
that's what counts :)