bear wrote:
> And your claim that [SRFI-10] is good enough is based on what?
> [...] there is no reason
> whatsoever *EXCEPT* aesthetics to pick any external syntax over
> any other.  [...]

SRFI-10 *can* express literal arrays. So can any proposed new syntax for
literal arrays. So they're both good enough in terms of minimal
functionality, and if minimal sufficiency were the only criterion, it
would certainly be a purely aesthetic choice.

SRFI-10 has a major advantage, however: it actually exists already, and
is already implemented in many schemes. Why multiply entities unnecessarily?

It has another advantage: it is more general than a special array-only
syntax. It can cope not only with arrays, but with other extensions to
Scheme's reader. This reduces the burden on the implementor.

Regards,
   Tony