Paul Schlie wrote:
> Personally I believe this is not a good idea, it's neither
> syntactically consistent with scheme, nor visually expected: more
> simply and consistently I would expect a #; comment to lexically
> remove the expression/token it's been lexically prepended to, nothing
> else. (including white-space). i.e.:
>
> ... (a #; b #;c) => (a b)

Why? That's a token comment, not an s-expression comment, and it seems
to serve no useful purpose (unless you intend to support token-pasting a
la (a#; b) => (ab), which is IMO a very bad idea).

I do agree that it'd be somewhat more intuitive if #; worked more like
QUOTE, with (#;#;foo bar) being equivalent to (#;(#;foo) bar) rather
than (#;foo #;bar). However, this idea of commenting tokens instead of
s-expressions seems like a very bad idea.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd