This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 108 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 108 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Per Bothner scripsit: > Technically, it's well-defined R6RS lexical syntax, but it would be > horrible style. Oh, I don't deny it. But I understood that SRFI 10 were meant to never redefine any construct that has meaning in R6RS. Therefore, it can only involve things in braces, or else hitherto unheard-of #-lexical-macros. This differentiates them from sweet-expressions, which are not yet a SRFI, and which *redefine* rather than just extending the lexical syntax of Scheme. > (The reader does return a form, just like it does for [e1 e2 ... en], > but it doesn't seem useful except in expression context.) Well, you never know. The proliferation of ",foo" REPL commands in different REPLs is obviously made more likely because Scheme is guaranteed to return "(unquote foo)" for it, but surely that was no part of the intention of the R3RS authors. In Common Lisp, backquote lexical syntax returns arbitrary CL code whose value you can't count on. -- That you can cover for the plentiful John Cowan and often gaping errors, misconstruals, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and disinformation in your posts cowan@xxxxxxxx through sheer volume -- that is another misconception. --Mike to Peter