Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@s48.org> writes:

> The proposed SRFI works fine with threads, as long as those
> threads do not require interrupting the C code at arbitrary
> points.

That's not threads.  See jimb's post from a while back.

Look, the problem here is easy:

1) Your SRFI demonstrably loses on certain kinds of implementations;
2) There is a minor change which will make it not lose.

Why on earth not prefer number (2)????

Thomas