By "syntax" I didn't specifically mean reader syntax, but also another layer of macro. In srfi-26 discussion, for example, '&' or '_j' were suggested, e.g. (& is _ < x). (Actually, using _ instead of <> was also discussed.)
The good thing to have such syntax is that now if you prefer _ to <>, you can go with this new syntax without being limited to 'is' macro. Coupling the sectioning notation with infix macro actually restricts the sectioning notation into special occasions. Again, if you have compelling reasons to do so, it's ok. I just haven't seen them yet.

And even if you don't change the SRFI 26 symbol, you can always do

(import (except (scheme base) _) (rename (srfi 26) (<> _)))

to get what you want. Advantage: This also works for people who prefer <> over _ and for people who prefer any other symbol, e.g. ?, over <> and _.

Marc

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=DSOz35jCh6KmKnBKsAUGHLH9A23l3Jov