First, its definitely a good thing to see hashtables get SRFI
treatment.  It would be a shame though if they weren't defined as
compatible with SRFI-44, whose purpose is to unify datastructures so
that they can be used generically and consistently in programs.

This basically only entails a little effort in procedure naming, and
in providing compatible fold functions.  It would be nice to say also
that implementations that support SRFI-44 must support the hashtables
for the generic elements of SRFI-44.

This wouldn't prevent implementations from supporting only SRFI-69,
but it would make the code consistent and portable between a 69 only
and a 44/69 implementation without a duplication of effort and API.

   Thanks,
    Scott