Hi!

It is more or less customary for SRFIs to propose names already in use for
features that lack standardization. In this case, the proposed definition
for 'pp' can be easily made backward-compatible with the current
definitions. Implementors can do the following without breaking their
existing code base:

Bigloo: (pp obj [output-port])   -- can be just extended in a
backwards-compatible way
Gambit: (pp obj [output-port [readtable]])  -- can be extended to allow an
optional readtable between port and keyword arguments
MIT Scheme:  (pp obj [output-port [as-code?]])  -- can be extended to allow
an optional flag between port and keyword arguments (as long as the flag is
not one of pp-xxx parameters)
STklos: (pp obj [output-port [width]]) -- can be extended to allow an
optional width between port and keyword arguments; special conventions for
#t/#f for the port are also easily distinguished from ports and parameters.

-Sergei

On Thursday, May 14, 2026 10:49:19 AM (-04:00), Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:

 > Hello!
 >
 > As per the message subject, Bigloo, Gambit, MIT Scheme and STklos
already bind the "pp" symbol for some pretty-printing procedure, so perhaps
it would be better to not use that?
 >
 > Jeronimo