On 13 Jun 2023, at 21:35, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2) Read/write are typically used to exchange data (in a textual
> format). This SRFI does not provide a way to exchange unreadable
> objects between different implementations.

This entire idea was a non-starter, in my view.

> 6) The usefulness of the SRFI is not yet clear to me.

Me neither. I continue to lean towards withdrawal as the best option, although I think a cut down version/hybrid of this version and the original could be useful, if it standardized all of:
1. #< being a sequence which signals an error when read, probably with no recovery mechanism, though I kind of like the idea of ‘stand-in objects’
2. unreadable-object? as a predicate when called on an object which would be unreadable (i.e. generate a #<) if it were fed to write
3. the R6RS errors with appropriate places in the condition hierarchy

Daphne