This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 88 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 88 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
I'm posting this merely for the sake of offering another opinion on legibility; I don't think that any syntax changes in this area are good, because they can break existing and compliant R5RS code. For instance, I've seen this naming convention somewhere: FOO has to do with an exclusive interval, FOO: with an interval exclusive on the lower bound and exclusive on the upper bound, :FOO with an interval inclusive on the lower bound and exclusive on the upper bound, and :FOO: with an inclusive interval. For another example, SRFI 42 would break if the meaning of a colon prefix were changed in Scheme's lexical identifier syntax, although if any extension were to be made I'd prefer the colon prefix. Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:18:17 -0400 From: Marc Feeley <email@example.com> I find colon at the end to be more natural since it closely corresponds to the use of colon in English (and many other natural languages). English has a few differences, though, most prominent among them that there is other punctuation separating the pairs. Compare: foo: bar, baz: quux, zot: mumble or foo: bar; baz: quux; zot: mumble with foo: bar baz: quux zot: mumble In the last one I find it hard to tell where one pair ends and the next one begins. On the other hand, with a prefix, the delimitation of the pairs is very clear: :foo bar :baz quux :zot mumble 1) I prefer prefix syntax, e.g. (button :text "OK" :action quit) 2) I prefer suffix syntax, e.g. (button text: "OK" action: quit) 3) I don't care I opt for (1).