Lauri Alanko wrote:
> So I suggest
>
> "hello"         -> hello
> "scheme://r6rs" -> (scheme r6rs)
>
> Only users of lesser programming languages are forced to stick with
> strings to represent identifiers and structured data.

No, "lesser languages" (which of course also support structured data,
if not as conveniently as Lisp/Scheme) use strings because they are
convenient and standrd.

The advantage of using URIs strings is that they are standard,
universal, and familiar.

> We have symbols and s-exps. Let's use them.

Why?  Saying something is "un-schemish" is not a reason.
What would using symbols and s-exp gain?  What kind of
operations would it make easier?

Your argument is an aethetic one - which is certainly valid.

What about "path names" (as used in file operations):
Should they be structured objects or strings?  There are good
reasons to prefer strings (standard, universal, and familiar,
as listed above).  At least it makes sense to read and print
pathnames using URI syntax.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/