Sebastian Egner wrote:
> You find my suggestions for SRFI-64 in an earlier posting,
> and of course in the specification of SRFI-78 itself.
> From your reply it is apparent that you do not consider them
> relevant enough to change anything in SRFI-64.

Huh?  In http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-78/mail-archive/msg00008.html
I tried to discuss what I see as the differences, including my thought
about changes to SRFI-64.  You did not respond to this message.

> Apart from that, please bear in mind that this is the mailing
> list of SRFI-78, and not of SRFI-64. According to me, the primary
> purpose of this mailing list is to put forward constructive
> criticism for improvement of the SRFI at hand, of which I have
> received a few---but not from you.

Suggesting that a SRFI duplicates functionality of another SRFI
and otherwise qustioning the need for it is appropriately done
on this list. You are of course allowed to ignore such comments,
but SRFIs are more useful for the Scheme community when there
is some attempt at getting wider agreement.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/