Lassi,

there only seem to be "shoulds" and not "musts" in the specification.
Isn't, therefore, SRFI 243 already implemented by all Scheme systems?

Your examples show that the Schemes in existence don't follow SRFI
243's recommendations.  For example, something like XXX#YYY is not the
written representation of a datum.  Moreover, if you type "<" instead
of "+" in the Chez Scheme REPL, you see that the angle brackets are
not usually paired.

Adding something like "<...>" to <datum> in the Scheme grammar doesn't
look like a particularly good idea because, by R7RS, <datums> are what
the reader successfully parses, and each <datum> must come with a
mapping to Scheme values.  But SRFI 243 doesn't define corresponding
values.  What would (foo . #<unreadable>) be for a Scheme reader that
"skipped" #<...>?

Thanks,

Marc

Am Mo., 21. Nov. 2022 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler
<xxxxxx@speechcode.com>:
>
> Scheme Request for Implementation 243,
> "Unreadable Objects,"
> by Lassi Kortela,
> is now available for discussion.
>
> Its draft and an archive of the ongoing discussion are available at https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-243/.
>
> You can join the discussion of the draft by filling out the subscription form on that page.
>
> You can contribute a message to the discussion by sending it to xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org.
>
> Here's the abstract:
>
> This SRFI standardizes a widely used lexical syntax for writing unreadable objects.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> SRFI Editor