> See the message at
> https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-17/msg/2778561/  and the following
> discussion for why there are good arguments against a SRFI-17-style
> addition to Scheme.  I definitely subscribe to these arguments. Per,
> the author of SRFI 17, does not. But we already had such a discussion
> and continuing it should happen somewhere else.

There are two distinct questions here:

1) Should set! be able to set things other than variables?

2) Should references/places be first-class or implied?

By my reading, your argument is that Scheme is cleaner (from a
functional programming standpoint?) if references/places are first class.