On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM, John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> > I don't see the use case for the lexical syntax. In fact, I'd
> > classify it as a Bad Idea.
>
> I agree. Does this have any precedent in existing implementations?

As noted in the text itself, it's present in Racket, Gambit, SISC, Chez,
and Chicken, though in Racket it means an immutable box.

Huh, I had double checked and still missed that.

I think it's good to have read syntax for most objects,

but would prefer to handle this more generally, e.g.

SRFI-10/108.

Alex