"Unfortunately, SRFI-49 had some awkward usage issues, and by itself it lacks support for infix notation (e.g., {a + b}) and prefix formats (e.g., f(x)). Sweet-expressions build on and refine SRFI-49 by addressing these issues. "
  Won't hurt to link here (again) to SRFI-105?

# Tutorial
## Clarifications
"2. Lines with only a ;-comment (preceded by 0 or more indent characters) are completely ignored - even their indentation (if any) is irrelevant."
  I'd explicitly add they are not considered empty and don't end an expression.

## Advanced features
"Sweet-expressions also add a few additional abbreviations, sometimes called sweet-expression “advanced features”, that make sweet-expressions even more pleasant to use"
  At least GROUP is essential, not just "more pleasant".  Though the existing formulation may be better than any precise alternatives.

- SUBLIST - add comment drawing attention to c d e f $ g == c d e f g != c d e f (g)

- mention in tutorial how to escape special markers (e.g. {\\})

# Spec
## Other requirements
"Implementations that provide R7RS semantics ... SHOULD appropriate variants of these"
  s/SHOULD/SHOULD include/.


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:20 AM, David A. Wheeler <xxxxxx@dwheeler.com> wrote:

I've just posted an updated SRFI-110, it's just small tweaks.

So.... is SRFI-110 ready for final release?

I haven't heard any more comments recently.  However, I'm concerned that the R7RS discussions are diverting everyone's attention (understandably).  In particular, if there are changes necessary before people will be willing to implement it in Scheme implementations, I *really* want to know that.

Do we need a little more time, or are we all done?

--- David A. Wheeler

--