That's pretty much the policy I am using now.  At the end of the R7RS-large process we'll have a vote on which lexical syntaxes to include in the large language.  See <https://bitbucket.org/cowan/r7rs-wg1-infra/src/default/LexicalDocket.md> for the current list.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:49 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
I think we really need a SRFI that is about extending the reader and new reader syntax. We already have a number of SRFIs that propose new literal syntaxes, none of which can be implemented in a portable fashion. Furthermore, there is (currently) no namespace mechanism for extending the reader. For identifiers, R6RS and R7RS solved the problem with libraries; for reader syntax there is yet no reliable way to prevent clashes.

Until then I propose not to make any custom reader syntax normative.

Marc

Am Di., 30. Okt. 2018 um 06:19 Uhr schrieb Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com>:
On 10/29/18 9:44 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:54 PM Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com <mailto:xxxxxx@bothner.com>> wrote:

>     See http://per.bothner.com/tmp/srfi-arrays.html for a first draft.

> If you wish to submit this formally as a SRFI, please let me know.

Would it makr sense to split off the literal (reader) syntax as a
separate (small) SRFI?
--
        --Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/


--
Prof. Dr. Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
 
Universität Augsburg
Institut für Mathematik
Universitätsstraße 14
86159 Augsburg
 
Tel: 0821/598-2146
Fax: 0821/598-2090
 
E-Mail: xxxxxx@math.uni-augsburg.de
Web: www.math.uni-augsburg.de/alg/mitarbeiter/mnieper/