On 7 Oct 2020, at 11:24, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:

> Alternatively, I would remove the reader notation from this SRFI
> altogether to possibly place them in a separate SRFI. In fact, the
> lexical syntax part of SRFI 207 is not really connected to the main
> procedural part. Some Scheme implementations may want to implement the
> procedures but do not (or cannot) implement the reader syntax; other
> implementations may like the reader syntax but not the procedures.
> Also, should we vote on this SRFI for inclusion in R7RS (large), there
> should really be two votes: One about the syntax, and one about
> bytestring interface. Having two SRFIs makes this easier.

In hindsight, I agree that merging these two SRFIs was a mistake. Mea
culpa.

Arthur, could we perhaps split them back out again into two separate
SRFIs without starting the process over? (Lawyering the process
document a bit, it says that the 60 day limit applies for *proposals*,
not SRFIs per se. Since the entire contents of the new SRFI have
already been discussed here, it would seem appropriate to consider the
new split-out SRFI — whether the split takes out the procedures or the
reader notation — to be the same proposal as already considered in this
one.)

> Marc

Daphne