Am Fr., 9. Dez. 2022 um 20:13 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:

> > I should also mention an argument that speaks against inventing a new
> > #? syntax:  The #-lexical syntax-namespace is small and precious, so
> > effectively doubling the syntax from #< to #< and #? for reader errors
> > may be a bit costly.
>
> I'm very sympathetic to that argument, and often deploy it myself.
>
> But unreadable objects are something fundamental, and the #<...>
> notation is fundamentally broken (which I didn't notice without your
> help; I've been looking at it for 10+ years so I had grown so accustomed
> to it that I didn't take it apart mentally!)

It is only "fundamentally broken" if you want that what comes between
#< and > to be readable using standard Scheme lexical syntax.  I am
not convinced that the latter is an important point.