bear scripsit:

> When scheme code is read as data, variable names are read
> as symbols.  To change the syntax of symbols without also
> changing the syntax of variable names is not sensible
> in the context of a lispy language.

+1

For a long time there's been an odd disconnect between the official and
effective syntaxes of Scheme.  The BNF does not actually allow
an expression like "(+ 2 . (3))", but I can't imagine a Scheme that
would fail to accept it.

Keith Wright scripsit:

> Can I now include Chinese and Hebrew characters in an
> identifier used as a variable or macro keyword?  Is it important
> that identifiers and symbols have the same lexical structure
> (as is the case in r5rs)?  Does this srfi mean to make them
> different or redefine both of them?

>From what I understand, it is now typical for Japanese programmers writing
bespoke Java code to do so entirely (except for reserved syntax words)
in Japanese.  Making Scheme fully accessible to programmers worldwide
implies allowing Scheme programs (even the syntax, if you want) to be
written with identifiers in any language.  This will undoubtedly interfere
with the ability to easily read any piece of Scheme code, but it is IMHO
worthwhile.

--
John Cowan                              xxxxxx@reutershealth.com
http://www.reutershealth.com            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Humpty Dump Dublin squeaks through his norse
                Humpty Dump Dublin hath a horrible vorse
But for all his kinks English / And his irismanx brogues
                Humpty Dump Dublin's grandada of all rogues.  --Cousin James