I suppose at the very least we can say something like "if a scheme
system supports both SRFI-110 and the syntax-case related #`, #', #,,
and #,@ reader syntaxes, then the reader SHOULD treat those syntaxes
as abbreviations in the same manner as ` ' , and ,@".

On 3/26/13, John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> David A. Wheeler scripsit:
>
>> I disagree. Many Scheme systems do not implement [#' and friends] or
>> implement some of these with very different semantics.  For example,
>> the many Schemes that implement SRFI-10 do something completely
>> different with "#,".  They've also been abandoned in R7RS.
>
> Ahem.  They have *not* been abandoned in R7RS.  They have been excluded
> from the *small* language of R7RS.  If syntax-case becomes part of
> R7RS-large (and I'm betting it will: it lost a preliminary ballot by
> one vote, and one of the non-voters says he'll vote this time), then
> its lexical syntax will return.  SRFI-10, on the other hand, is very
> very unlikely to become part of R7RS (says the guy who's in control of
> the agenda, unless the members vote to override me on this one).
>
> Sorry for being stroppy, but I take this R7RS business seriously.
>
> --
> John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    xxxxxx@ccil.org
> SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
> be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
> buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
> in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
> witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev
>
>