> I strongly suggest that you read the SRFI Process Document and FAQ
> again. Your SRFI is already overdue, it's had several major changes, it
> still has major issues with the dictionary concept, and most of it is
> unimplemented. Based on that, you really should withdraw the SRFI until
> (1) you resolve all of the major issues *and* (2) you have a complete
> implementation for every collection type to prove the concept.
>
> That second part is very important, and you can't excuse it just by
> saying that it's a "meta-SRFI." I suspect that you'll eventually run
> into problems with the way you've classified the collections. But I
> don't know for sure, and neither do you, because you don't have *any*
> implementation of a set or bag.

We're going to have to agree to disagree at this point.  The API for
both bags and sets are sound, and the remaining issues with dictionaries
are all but solved.  SRFIs needn't have unanimous approval, nor are they
gospel that must be implemented by all.  If this SRFI has problems, as
you have stated without any supporting evidence, then may it die a
horrible death of neglect.  This SRFI is a necessary step towards
a standard library of usable collections, not the final word on such a
library.  So, barring additional concrete criticism by others this SRFI
will be finalized sooner rather than later.

Thank you for your valid insights into the earlier flaws.  The SRFI is
better because of them.

	Scott