Alan Manuel Gloria:
> I personally dislike #!srfi-105, but I won't actively oppose it.

I'm no fan of the marker either.  But in my mind *adoption* is the measure that matters.  If including a marker in the spec will "make the medicine go down" then we need to do it.  Hopefully in 10 years this marker's support will be a fossil in old readers :-).

> Perhaps we should just generally encourage SRFI-105-by-default

Oh, definitely.

> , but
> suggest that writers of Scheme code should use #!srfi-105 explicitly
> if portability across Scheme's is a concern.

I think we should make an even weaker statement:
"Applications may include this marker before using any curly-infix expressions, typically near the top of a file."

If, as we hope, everyone implements it anyway, then applications won't need the marker for portability... so let's not hamstring them with the requirement that they MUST do it.

--- David A. Wheeler