What is the base environment provided by the repl, scripts, and the result of (scheme-report-environment 7)?
The intention was the base script environment was empty, scheme-report-environment was (scheme base), and repls were an implementation-defined superset thereof, but there are other options and we need to clarify this.
We voted for the original intent as described above.
We now talk of programs rather than scripts, and (scheme-report-environment 5) returns the same as (environment '(scheme r5rs)), but the basic intent is preserved: programs start with an empty environment, REPLs don't.
I'm thinking that scheme-report-environment just doesn't make sense any more. I think that scripts and the REPL should both be implementation-dependent supersets of (scheme base) -- indeed, I don't see any point in distinguishing between the two. Both scripting and interaction are environments in which convenience should trump bureaucracy.
R6RS has a procedure environment which accepts multiple arguments which look like import specs, and returns an environment containing the specified names. So (environment) is equivalent to R5RS (empty-environment), (environment '(scheme base)) returns a base environment, and so on. That makes a lot of sense to me.