On 7 Oct 2025, at 08:10, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

> Every SRFI author is free in what they suggest, aren't they? If in
> some SRFI XXX, it is suggested that SRFI YYY should be amended in some
> particular way (or imported in some particular way), that should not
> need consent by SRFI YYY's author. I don't think it is good if the
> SRFI editor makes decisions regarding content (vs form).

I thought we had reached consensus at some point that later SRFIs actually amending earlier SRFIs is a bad idea. They should either supersede them (as 158 superseded 121) or build upon them with new bindings (228 extends 128 but has a completely different set of bindings). In particular, the suggestion of SRFI 162 that its bindings are added to the SRFI 128 library has only caused confusion; we should not repeat that mistake.

Whether that is policy or not, I don’t know.

> What I do think is important is that everyone remembers that a priori
> a SRFI's contents only reflect the opinion of its author and that it
> doesn't (necessarily) reflect the consensus of the Scheme community.

True, but a proliferation of SRFIs offering little more than bikeshedding – especially when it affects the core matter of accessibility of other SRFIs through familiar means, like this SRFI – is a bad idea.

Daphne