Shiro Kawai scripsit:

> C-exprs and n-exprs are technically orthogonal, and you split
> them partly because for the ease of adoption.  But I feel that
> combining them increases their appeal a lot for wider adoption,
> while supporting only one doesn't seem likely.
>
> Supporting n-exprs only in c-exprs may seem technically inelegant,
> but how about seeing it as a starting point?  To me it seems easier
> to flip switch once I enter '{}' world, so I don't mind if the
> syntax is different in '{}' from outside '()' world.

+1 to all points.

I believe that n-expressions outside curlies will never be a good idea.
(I also don't like the name; it makes me think of Theodore Sturgeon's
classic short story _Microcosmic God_.)  I'd say go ahead and include
n-exprs in SRFI 105, though.

--
"Repeat this until 'update-mounts -v' shows no updates.         John Cowan
You may well have to log in to particular machines, hunt down   xxxxxx@ccil.org
people who still have processes running, and kill them."