Thanks for commenting, Faré!

> This is the approach used by Gerbil Scheme, that is a monorepo of
> plenty of libraries on top of a Racket-like module system on top of
> Gambit Scheme (but has been retargeted in the past and could be
> retargeted again), and to a point used by my Gerbil-Utils which is a
> set of more experimental extensions to Gerbil, that I use a staging
> area before inclusion to Gerbil itself (when, in my copious free time,
> I can get the stuff documented).

Since you don't mention any problems with the monorepo approach I assume
it has been a success. If that's the case, it's good to have validation.

> A lot of things could be done to make Gerbil nicer, more portable,
> more coherent, etc.—but it's a great starting point.

Like Racket, Gerbil adds quite a bit to standard Scheme. How much of the
current Gerbil libs would run on standard Scheme (R6RS and/or R7RS) and
would Gerbil users be interested in collaborating on a standard Scheme
library collection?

I have a strong interest in all the interfaces being portable to every
reasonably featureful Scheme that wants them, and so far others feel
similarly. The code itself can be cond-expand'ed as needed.