What can I say: I'm annoyed.

Of course the SRFI processes *allows* duplicate "standards",
but clearly that should be undesirable, except in the case of
documenting existing practice.  That is not the case with
SRFI-64 vs -78, as far as I know.

One of the reasons for SRFI-64 is that I think the Scheme world
needs a standard for test-suites: Specifically,there should be can
expectation that SRFIs should come with a portable suitesuite.
That becomes a lot less likely when we have competing SRFIs.

 > The mechanism in this SRFI does not replace more sophisticated
 > approaches to unit testing, like SRFI 64 [1] or SchemeUnit [2].

Do you really believe that?  People are going to choose one syntax
for a test-suite and having multiple APIs makes it less likely people
will write testsuites.

Why would you want a "lightweight testing" framework and a separate
"sophisticated testing" that are incompatible?  If you really want
lightwight testing, we should work on common subset.  I've been quite
open to suggestion.  If you don't like the style of SRFI-64, it would
be helpful to know why.  Howwver, the styles actually seem very similar
at initial look - and I couldn't find your name in the SRFI-64
discussion archive.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/