I second for #r(..). It doesn't seem to conflict with existing implementations afaik. (s7 uses #r<digit>d(...) but it can coexist.)
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:40 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen < [email protected]> wrote: > Time for some bikeshedding! > > The current draft proposes to use > > #[uid field ...] > > for the lexical syntax of (non-opaque) records, a syntax that can be > found in Chez Scheme. for example. > > On the other hand, given the existing notations for bytevectors, > #vu8(...) and #u8(...), the lexical syntax > > #r(uid field ...) > > may make more sense for records. (As Scheme has Records and not > Structs, I am using an R, not an S, here.) > > The latter syntax has the advantage that it does not rely on a > difference between parentheses and brackets (which are, otherwise, > equivalent, at least in R6RS). > > Thoughts? Comments? >
