On 15/08/2021 14:26, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:

> Before I am going to reply to each of your comments, can I ask you how
> much of the SRFI you have actually read and understood?  Most of your
> comments seem to be based on a number of misconceptions.

I have not read it, and that is intentional. The SFRI database is,
effectively, a key-value dictionary, with keys being abstracts and
values being the bodies.

As opposed to an abstract of a scientific paper, which is aimed at
inciting a reviewer's interest in reviewing the paper (and thus should
be as as intriguing as possible), the abstract of a documentation entry
(and throughout its lifetime, an SRFI is mainly a documentation entry),
serves the opposite purpose -- it should only attract the engineer's
attention if the engineer cannot avoid reading it.

Dealing with engineers' misconceptions is, I am afraid, impossible to
avoid. I am not the only one who has them. And although the body (which
will be read by more invested people) itself can have stronger
expectations from the reader audience, the abstract does not have such a
liberty.