> 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.

It's confusing if an SRFI exports identifiers that are not defined in
the text of some other SRFI.

I sympathize with the desire to have more convenient libraries to
import, instead of importing a whole bundle of SRFIs. But this is IMHO a
misuse of the SRFI process. This is yet another problem that comes back
to the basic fact that SRFI is not good at addressing evolving needs.