This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> You give a good justification for why precedence isn't supported, yet > the specification doesn't enforce this by requiring an error be > signaled for ambiguous expressions. Furthermore, the draft allows > implementations to implement any precedence behavior using NFX. If > SRFI-105 is going to be an alternate syntax for Scheme, it should > force uniformity among supporting implementations. Less radical than > not allowing ambiguous expressions would be having left-associative be > the default precedence. The point of `nfx` is to be a hook for the *end user* of the implementation, **not** the implementation. > Furthermore, the draft allows > implementations to implement any precedence behavior using NFX. The draft specifically makes no allowance for the *Scheme* implementation to implement `nfx`: it makes no mention that an implementation *may*, *should*, or *must* provide `nfx`, only that its reader insert that symbol. Perhaps we'll clarify in the SRFI that an implementation *must not* provide `nfx` (with the exception that a *future* SRFI *may* mandate that implementations provide `nfx` at some level).