Re: srfi-108 (named quasi-literal constructors) candidate Per Bothner 27 Mar 2013 07:20 UTC

On 03/26/2013 11:52 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Migrate the discussion of delimiter options, which is mostly of
> historical interest, to the bottom of the SRFI.

The SRFI format has a fixed list of sections.  Adding extra
sections (like an appendix) isn't strictly prohibited, but
I haven't seen it in SRFIs.  Regardless, it seems the
discussion of delimiter options logically belongs in the
Rationale section.

Perhaps tweaking the introductory paragraph would help?
Perhaps something like:

    This specification uses "&" as marker/delimiter character.
    Alternative marker characters were also considered, and
    this mostly-historical section explains why we chose "&".
    The discussion also considers SRFI-109, and refers to
    the non-terminals defined in the syntax specifications
    of both SRFI-108 and SRFI-109.
	--Per Bothner