[R6RS] Timeline for R6RS SRFIs

[Manuel Serrano]

> SRFI 69 constitutes my take on "binary I/O."  (If opportune, what we
> consider for R6RS can be restricted to the imperative layer.)  Given
> that I've been the one-person-subcommittee on I/O, I suggest that any
> initial activity on the subject takes place there.
I guess that you meant SRFI 68. We have not had the chance to talk
about this proposal in Boston. I'm sorry Mike but I strongly disagree
with this SRFI. I think that its far to big (the document is nearly as
long as the R5Rs), it introduces too many functions and complexity and
I'm not sure it enables efficient implementation. Personally I'm not sure
that it's a good starting point for our discussion on Binary IO. Of course,
I can be wrong and I would like to read what the others think about it.

-- 
Manuel