>>45
But I don't need them, and all the Scheme implementations out there already ship a de facto standard OOP system. Chicken has COOPS (CLOS-like), Guile has GOOPS (CLOS-like), Racket has its class system, etc. All of them have Prometheus (prototypes) in some third party library. I don't need one of them in the standard, that's not the point of Scheme. OOP is not even idiomatic Scheme, they are only nice to have in certain situations, with certain code that is handled better with OOP than FP.
The only thing I
really want I saw and immediately want in the standard was
foof-loop, the best general looping construct I've seen so far. It is clean, extensible, handles really well the general cases, and it's portable between R5RS-compliant implementations. And it will likely be in Big R7RS, so I have no regrets.
When you write idiomatic Lisp/Scheme code, reinventing the wheel, you probably end up with something similiar to something else, already implemented, and you just end using that instead. Meanwhile, you've learned something new by reimplementing it.