On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:17:59 -0400
John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote:

> > The good thing here is that we have a separation of concerns here:
> >>> >
> >>> > (1) Signifying that a file is to be parsed with a specific reader.
> >>> > (2) Extending the built-in reader.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The first is more general, if less convenient.
> >>
> >
> > There may be some misunderstanding. (1) is not an alternative to (2) but
> > both go hand-in-hand.
> >
>
> For which use cases, other than changing the lexical syntax in the middle
> of a file (compilation unit), can #2 do the job but not #1?

From what I see we don't need #2 at all. Because if we have #1 I can write my
own reader that allow to extend itself. I can then package that reader as
extendable reader that allow of extension by set-syntax! this reader can be
specified by different spec that will use the #1.

I think that we don't need to extend built-in reader if we can change the
reader. User can specify library using extendable reader and use set-special!
is his library. From what I see in this discussion is that we can't allow to
extend built-in reader that's why we need to change the reader.

--
Jakub T. Jankiewicz, Web Developer
https://jcubic.pl/me