On 2026-04-17T19:56:53+0700 (Friday), Andrew Tropin writes:
> The most heated discussion so far was regarding assertion naming, `is`
> syntax in particular.

Reminds me of https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html

> So the syntax `is` creates an assert entity and sends it to the test
> runner.

Given the above, I am in favor of something akin to the make-assertion
suggested by John earlier, even though it wasn't in the list of options
in the referenced message.  Of the options in that message, my
preference would be 'check'.

Thanks for this SRFI. I like the idea of separating the definition and
execution of tests.  I hope to experiment a bit with the sample
implementation soon.

Some assiduous soul should perhaps write a test suite for SRFI 64 using
SRFI 269 and vice versa.

Regards,

-chaw