Per Bothner scripsit:

> I've settled on the &name[initial-exp]{text} syntax, which
> is a hybrid of the XML syntax (in using & rather than @)
> and the Scribble syntax (in using a single prefix character
> rather than #&, and in the use of brackets/braces).

It continues to disturb me that "&name[initial-exp]" already has a meaning
in R6RS, such that this is not an upward compatible extension.  I still
strongly prefer #& to plain &, especially as identifiers beginning with &
are actually in use in R6RS.

In my test suite, Racket, SISC, and STklos use #& as a literal syntax
for a box containing the following S-expression, and a few Schemes treat
it as identifier syntax, but most raise a syntax error, which makes it
a reasonable extension point.

--
Newbies always ask:                             John Cowan
  "Elements or attributes?                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Which will serve me best?"                      xxxxxx@ccil.org
  Those who know roar like lions;
  Wise hackers smile like tigers.                   --a tanka, or extended haiku