I 100% agree with Marc.  I see no purpose to this new STFI,
unless it is redefined as a subset of SRFU-4.
(1) Adding SRFI-66 to a system that already provides SRFI-4
makes the combined library worse, not better.  Providing two
names for the same thing is generally a bug, not a feature.
(2) Given a choice between implementations with SRFI-4 or one
SRFI-66, the former is more useful.
(3) Given a choice between SRFI-66 or neither, obviously SRFI-66
is preferable.  But the benefits of SRFI-66 can be achieved by
respecifying SRFI-66 as a subset of SRFI-4.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/