David Banks scripsit:

> The spec seems good.  I would personally make the lexical syntax
> optional, as it is (to my eyes) ugly and doesn't provide anything
> strictly necessary, which the rest of the spec does.

One of the things I've found out from the SRFI-110 effort is that all
novel lexical syntax seems ugly when you aren't used to it.  I think
it's a Good Thing to have box : it makes it easy and natural to use them,
and there are no phasing issues since there are no names involved.

> It might be worth noting in the spec that the reference
> implementations do not implement the lexical syntax.

I will do so.

--
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy?      John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
             thou hast given away:      xxxxxx@ccil.org
      That thou wast born with.