Why can´t we simply specify that SRFI 228's library includes all
exports from SRFI 128, 162, and those defined in the SRFI 228 spec?
As a byproduct, this way, SRFI 228 can clean up the situation about
SRFI 128/162.

Am Sa., 10. Dez. 2022 um 21:46 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
>
> NB: "rather than being in a separate library" is especially ambiguous;
> does it suggest that if and when the procedures ship in some other
> library, the (srfi 228) library should be retroactively removed from the
> relevant Scheme implementations?