"Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> writes:

> On Sep 10, 2015 1:10 PM, "Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer"
> <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you think it would hinder adoption that the reader syntax is
>> mandatory, or lead to other problems?
>
> Yes, particularly since it disagrees with the other SRFI John
> mentioned.

I would say it doesn't really disagree with it, since that one seems to
be focused on extending the syntax of source code without touching
pure-data representation.

Still, I guess I'll make it optional, along with weak/ephemeral
hashtables, so there's still some utility of the SRFI for those who
don't like all of it.

Taylan