On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:

> The more I think about it, the more I like it.  There are two
> downsides:
>
> - The last vestige of R5RS compatibility goes out the window.  Does
>   anyone care?

I don't.

> - This SRFI is then no longer suitable for ad-hoc debugging output
>   (which, I think, provides the rationale for CURRENT-OUTPUT-PORT).

As I suggested, slots in the dynamic environment could be added for
ports with more specifically meaningful applications; e.g., there could
be a DEBUG-OUTPUT-PORT added.  But as it is the current input & output
ports are not specifically intended for random debugging output, or
I've seen them misused a great deal, and even if they were that would
be hardly reason enough for the havoc wrought on signature consistency
for them (not to mention an unclear name).