> Again, the set of possible names is virtually infinite, so (if you allow
> me to be so frank) it would just be stupid to insist on using the very
> same name.

It's not stupid. I've been under the impression it's widely recognized
that the R6RS "scheme-script" is non-normative and broken as designed,
since it gives so few guarantees about what features the script can use.
It specifies strict R6RS conformance, but nothing about what Scheme
implementation, OS, or libraries are available. The latter are probably
much more useful guarantees to most scripts, than strict R6RS semantics
are. The priorities are backwards.

Since the priorities are backwards, it's reasonable to start from the
assumption that not many practical scripts are using this mechanism
outside of a site-specific environment. After all, if you need Chez
Scheme, why not just run `chezscheme`?

We could pick another name, but `scheme-script` is the natural name for
Scheme scripts, so it pays to exhaust all the avenues for reclaiming
that one. `scheme` is another natural name, but that's effectively taken
too (contentious between Chez, MIT, and some others).

The usability of the Scheme "ecosystem" (like RMS, I find that word is
imprecise, but can't think of anything better) is improved if we manage
reclaim the simple names for the purpose that the name suggests.
Usability is weakened if things have misleading semantics, and the
problem is compounded with each decade.