On 09/11/2015 03:04 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> 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 agree.

A bonus is if hashtables take part in quasi-quotation, so
you could use the "same" syntax for computed values:

    `#hash((,n1 . ,v1) (,n2 . ,v2))

In the above n1 v1 n2 v2 are computed expressions.

Regardless, the result should (probably) be an immutable hash-table.

--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/