The way the discussion is going, I feel compelled to put on my
editor's hat for a moment.  If you'll indulge me, pretend, for a
second, that I'm not a co-author of this SRFI.

Some of you are pretending that writing a SRFI comes with some kind of
obligation to fulfill certain goals you think are implied by its
title, or that the SRFI somehow implies a certain opinion or view.  In
fact, no such obligation exists outside of what the editors determine,
and the SRFI represents a suggestion rather than a view.  Instead,
authors of SRFIs are providing a *service*.  If you make use of this
service or not is entirely up to you.  If you don't like the service,
ignore it or provide another.  That's what the SRFI process is for.
If you're unhappy about that, post on srfi-discuss.

Therefore, wordings like (I'm approximating here) "wasted SRFI" or "we
must reject the approach taken in the draft" are entirely uncalled
for, and not helpful in the discussion---especially, as they're likely
to annoy the authors and get you away from the goal of convinving them
to change the draft, rather than closer to it.

Now, putting on my author's hat back on, neither Richard nor I have
offered this SRFI *draft* as the final word on anything.  Right now,
we're trying to understand the issues.  Burying them under lots of
opinionated language (whether the opinions are justified or not) isn't
going to help.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla