On 8 Oct 2025, at 04:39, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:

> I know that you know this, but I want to repeat it here for the wider audience: SRFIs are requests for implementation, and do not impose any requirement on implementations.  In other words, the author of each SRFI is making a proposal, and is hoping that Scheme implementers and maintainers will take up the proposal.  Furthermore, according to the SRFI process we've been following since 1998, the editors (e.g. me, at the moment) must decide whether to accept and perhaps finalize each SRFI based only on whether it follows the required form, and not based on the editors' and reviewers' opinions of the proposed idea.  I've done my best to follow this process, which means, I'm afraid, that I can't "step in here and at the very least prevent this from happening."  But I'm sure that implementers will read SRFI 261 carefully and come to their own conclusions, and I can only imagine that your opinion will be important in their evaluations.

I wish to submit SRFI 266. Although it is numbered 266, it in fact will define a new library called (srfi 1)/(srfi :1 lists). This library will be an alias for the R6RS lists library, which is much smaller than, and in a few cases incompatible with, Olin’s proposal. I think it would be better for Scheme if only the standard list library of the Scheme report were in common use.

Do you see the problem here?

Daphne