Sorry, cut/pasted too quickly:

 <comment> -> <datum-comment> | <quote-comment> | ; <all-chars-to-break>

 <datum-comment> -> #; <datum-or-empty>

 <datum-or-empty> -> <datum> | <datum-comment> | <quote-comment> | <empty>

 <quote-comment> -> '  <comment-or-empty>
                  | `  <comment-or-empty>
                  | ,  <comment-or-empty>
                  | @, <comment-or-empty>

 <comment-or-empty> -> <datum-comment> | <quote-comment> | <empty>

> From: Paul Schlie <xxxxxx@comcast.net>
>
>> From: Alpine Petrofsky <xxxxxx@petrofsky.org>
>>
>> I encourage anyone who would like to see different behavior
>> standardized to provide a formal specification of what he desires.
>
> This should do it, and feels somewhat simpler:
>
>  <comment> -> <datum-comment> | ; <all-subsequent-chars-up-to-a-line-break>
>
>  <datum-comment> -> #; <datum-or-comment>
>
>  <datum-or-comment> -> <datum> | <datum-comment> | <empty>
>
> Which should satisfy the following reader scenarios:
>
>  (#; <a> #; '<b>) => ()
>  (<a> #; #; '<b>) => (<a>)
>  (#; #; <a> '<b>) => ('<b>)
>  (<a> '<b> #; #;) => (<a> '<b>)
>
> Where if it's also desired to define what ' ` , mean if applied to <empty>,
> then comment need only be extended with a definition of <quote-comment>:
>
>  <comment> -> <datum-comment>
>             | <quote-comment>
>             | ; <all-subsequent-chars-up-to-a-line-break>
>
>  <quote-comment> -> ' <empty> | ` <empty> | , <empty> | @, <empty>
>
>   (although basically cheating, vs re-writing ' ` , @,  patterns)
>
> Which should satisfy the following further reader scenarios:
>
>  (' #; <a> ') => ()
>  (' <a> #; ') => ('<a>)
>
> As although quoting <empty>, or commenting <empty> is redundant, there seems
> no good reason to generate an error; just as quoting a <literal> is also
> redundant and doesn't generate an error.