On Sat, 1 Jan 2005, Per Bothner wrote:

>xxxxxx@autodrip.bloodandcoffee.net wrote:

>> I think it would be perfectly fine, except for backwards compatibility
>> problems, to flush the #(...) vector syntax in favour of a more general
>> array syntax.
>
>Perhaps we should should flush the (a b c) syntax for #,(list a b c) ?
>
>   I'm confused as to why using SRFI 10 makes things
>> 'second-class,' however.  What makes SRFI 10 degrade the class of what
>> it is used to represent?  There seems to be a great deal of aversion to
>> SRFI 10 here that I don't understand.
>
>It's aesthetic.  If you don't understand it, I don't know how to explain
>it.

I think I agree with Mr. Bothner here.  SRFI-10 syntax is excellent for
user-defined types, for types such as time introduced by libraries, etc.
I value SRFI-10 because it makes the scheme type system *extensible*,
not because I think it's particularly excellent syntax for any particular
thing.

Arrays, properly supported, are not an extension.  They're a core language
feature like lists.  They deserve their own syntax.

					Bear