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 their 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

-Sergei

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