This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 69 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 69 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
First, its definitely a good thing to see hashtables get SRFI treatment. It would be a shame though if they weren't defined as compatible with SRFI-44, whose purpose is to unify datastructures so that they can be used generically and consistently in programs. This basically only entails a little effort in procedure naming, and in providing compatible fold functions. It would be nice to say also that implementations that support SRFI-44 must support the hashtables for the generic elements of SRFI-44. This wouldn't prevent implementations from supporting only SRFI-69, but it would make the code consistent and portable between a 69 only and a 44/69 implementation without a duplication of effort and API. Thanks, Scott