Artyom,

Thanks for your reply.

On 2026-09-18 01:18 +0400, Artyom Bologov wrote:
> > (But the question for *you*, the SRFI author, is why
> > should they?)
>
> This is a question of values. I value the match between semantics and
> APIs, thus my opinion that these type predicates are “missing.”

Well, in Scheme we know the value of everything.

As with any other kind of communication, a SRFI is more likely to be
read if it addresses issues other people have encountered.  It really
would help the SRFI’s chances of adoption if it suggested some reason,
other than theoretical completeness, to bother with it.

> Might I ask what you suggest as the right way?

Presenting some useful operations on these types would go a
long way toward making them seem worth adopting.  These would help
answer the questions some readers will have, e.g. “when would I care
whether a random procedure is actually a parameter object?”  Your
In(tro)spection Protocol SRFI includes some environment operations
which seem (?) to be nullary; they could be updated and presented
here as operations on environment objects.

Of course, a sample implementation or an idea of how to implement these
types would also help.

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