Andrew,

On 2026-06-28 12:45 +0700, Andrew Tropin wrote:
> > Do suite loaders really need to be disjoint from
> > other procedures?  I can't see a compelling reason.
>
> Yes, it's needed for "discovery" functionality.  Current implementation
> in suitbl loads all the modules ending with `-test` suffix and fetch all
> suite-loaders from them.

The SRFI mentions "discovery" only once, in passing.  It's hard to know
what to make of this, without treating the sample implementation as
normative.  This is not the first time I've run into this situation in
SRFI 269.

Bluntly speaking, I think this SRFI needs a lot of work and cannot be
implemented, as it stands, unless the implementer just copies the
sample implementation.  It's possible the system isn't ready for
specification, but I think it's just a matter of sitting down and
describing the whole system without the "crutch of code".  The
specification should stand on its own--if it doesn't, there's not much
point in writing a SRFI.

I hope the next draft will make things clearer.

(Disclaimer: The authors have the last word when it come to
finalization.  The above is 100% opinion.)

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>