It is time to resolve this SRFI one way or another.

Shiro Kawai wrote:
> Yes.  The sole purpose of the proposal is to eliminate the
> requirement of separate implicit namespace; if there's other
> way to achieve the same goal, I won't stick to my proposal.

The uid extension described by this SRFI is optional,
so implementations can support the SRFI while using
your suggested semantics for uid instead of the one
described in the SRFI, or by using a different syntax
altogether.

Indeed, I regard the uid extension as mostly a proof
of concept, to show that this SRFI could be extended
to serve as a basis for implementations of the R6RS
record system.  I think that extension would be more
complicated with the semantics Shiro is advocating.
Hence I am not inclined to revise the SRFI to use Shiro's
semantics, even though I think Shiro has made some good
points.

I think our archived discussion of this may be useful
in the future, but this optional feature does not have
to hold up resolution of the SRFI.

Will