On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Matthew Flatt wrote:

> Andre wrote:

>> - It would be nice if the toplevel could also be considered an implicit
>>   library.
>
> Ok, but I'll stand firm on the top-level-doesn't-exist view of this
> particular SRFI.

Although the SRFI still says something about the toplevel.  In particular,
the statement it makes seems to be:

   "The toplevel cannot be considered a library",

unless we change Scheme by having reserved words and disallow shadowing at the
toplevel.

This state of affairs may indeed be entirely reasonable, as long as it is
intended.

Cheers
Andre