From: xxxxxx@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
   Date: 05 Jan 2004 17:37:35 -0800

   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.

If you mean the first posting to the SRFI-50 mailing list,
he began with:

  When I say "thread", I'm referring to all of the following:

and then listed three kinds of threads.  The threads described
above are the first of his three kinds.  So he, at least, does
think that those are threads, and also understands that his
definition is not necessarily the same as everyone elses.

   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)????

Clue me in.  What is the minor change?  A lot of different
suggestions have been made.
                                          -Richard