Am Di., 13. Juni 2023 um 22:37 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:

> I'm against mixing lexical syntax and procedures in the same SRFI. In my
> opinion, that causes predictable problems which are avoided by putting
> syntax in a separate SRFI. The main problem is that lexical syntax is
> much more contentious than mere procedures. Ways to "library-ize"
> lexical syntax are also contentious and underdeveloped.

In the particular case of this SRFI, not prescribing a particular
lexical syntax is not a good idea because it makes the gist of the
SRFI completely implementation-dependent, thwarting the raison d'être
for a SRFI, IMO.

Is it necessary that this SRFI hooks into the existing read/write
procedures? This would only be necessary if program text could contain
unreadable objects, but this is not allowed by Scheme's program
syntax. So, instead, let this SRFI export its own read/write
procedures (possibly renamed; or one relies on the renaming feature of
the library system) that are unreadable-object-aware. This way, the
new lexical syntax is "library-ized" and two different implementations
can use SRFI 243's library to communicate with each other.