It looks to me as if the new version does not have too much in common with the original one, so a longer discussion period may be helpful.
A couple of comments: 1) What is meant by "well-formed S-expression"? What is a "binary S-expression"? 2) Read/write are typically used to exchange data (in a textual format). This SRFI does not provide a way to exchange unreadable objects between different implementations. 3) The SRFI is probably incompatible to R6RS because R6RS's read/get-datum must raise a lexical error as soon as an invalid character is encountered while datum syntax is read. 4) How are cycles/shared data structures going through unreadable objects handled? 5) The R6RS conditions defined in the SRFI don't have a place in the condition hierarchy yet. 6) The usefulness of the SRFI is not yet clear to me. Am Di., 13. Juni 2023 um 20:51 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <[email protected]>: > > The rewritten draft of 243 hasn't received any comments. I don't know > whether that means it's good, bad, or neither. > > If someone would like to suggest some changes or to extend the last-call > period, please say so. Otherwise we'll declare it final within the next > couple of days. >
