Am Di., 13. Juni 2023 um 22:37 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <[email protected]>:
> I'm against mixing lexical syntax and procedures in the same SRFI. In my > opinion, that causes predictable problems which are avoided by putting > syntax in a separate SRFI. The main problem is that lexical syntax is > much more contentious than mere procedures. Ways to "library-ize" > lexical syntax are also contentious and underdeveloped. In the particular case of this SRFI, not prescribing a particular lexical syntax is not a good idea because it makes the gist of the SRFI completely implementation-dependent, thwarting the raison d'être for a SRFI, IMO. Is it necessary that this SRFI hooks into the existing read/write procedures? This would only be necessary if program text could contain unreadable objects, but this is not allowed by Scheme's program syntax. So, instead, let this SRFI export its own read/write procedures (possibly renamed; or one relies on the renaming feature of the library system) that are unreadable-object-aware. This way, the new lexical syntax is "library-ized" and two different implementations can use SRFI 243's library to communicate with each other.
