Hi all,

I'm starting a new thread in order to compact the debate.

First of all thank you to Marc and Peter for taking time for the
review. I applied all the remarks of Peter, thanks for the english and,
alas, typos. I also replaced \ by //.

The main remark is about using symbolic versus hygienic matching. I
agree with Marc that it must be fixed before finalization.

The current proposal is not perfect but it is simple. It also has
one advantage: using symbolic matching avoids to thinking on the
context, it is univocal. It also avoids splitting predefined operators
in many sub-libraries (ex: (srfi 266 flonum)) that I failed to imagine
how it can be composed (ex: (import (srfi 266 flonum) (srfi 266
fixnum)).

Mark suggested unquoting: (expr ,x + ,(* 4 12)). I understand the idea
but it looks awkward and probably no one wants of it if a cleaner
solution exists.

In an other place he wrote:

  The `expr` form receives a parsed syntax object. Parsing has
  happened at a higher level than lexical analysis. Things like
  individual parentheses (as in your grammar) make no sense at this
  level.

It implies that part of the specification is to be rewritten. I have to
check. It will take time...

I checked identifier-property and it looked promising on the paper but
I noticed that there is very few implementations. Peter points
Capy scheme and srfi 262. I have to check. It will take time...

I was thinking I used R6RS macro facilities, but Marc tells I don't,
so I have to check. It will take time...

Arthur, should we make a 7th draft including Peter's improvements?
should we remove the final call status? should we wait?

To be honest, I'm also thinking about withdrawing because I'm not sure
to have much time in the next months for it and it may wait R7RS-large
finalization and more srfi-213 identifier properties) implementations.

regards
José