John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit:
>
>> 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.
>
> I have no problem with making it optional.  But I suggest that in that
> case you adopt Racket's lexical syntax rather than a minor change from
> it, so there will at least be some implementation.  I would guess that
> Larceny is unlikely to adopt it, for instance, since Will's paper implies
> that the Larceny parser is not table-driven.

You're right, making it so close to yet different from Racket's syntax
was silly I guess.

Taylan