Re: srfi-108 (named quasi-literal constructors) candidate Per Bothner 27 Mar 2013 16:12 UTC

I updated
to hopefully satisfy your comments below.

On 03/26/2013 11:52 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> In the abstract, "The reader translates &tag{...} to a list
> $(construct$:tag ...), where construct$:tag is normally bound to a
> predefined macro" has $( for ($ and omits $ after "where ".


> "two different purposes": Adopt SRFI 109 language.


> In "Translating enclosed expressions", shift the current language to
> the top of the section and the former language (involving $unquote$)
> to the bottom, for the sake of clarity.


> Starting an identifier with "&" is not at all rare in R6RS, where it is
> conventional in the names of record types.  However, the rest of that
> paragraph is valid.


> For "specifiction" read "specification".

Fixed (two places).
	--Per Bothner