And finally, slightly simpler:

 <comment> -> <datum-comment> | <empty-quote> | ; <all-chars-to-eol>

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

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

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

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

> From: Paul Schlie <xxxxxx@comcast.net>
> 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.