Am Sa., 22. Apr. 2023 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 4:31 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You seem to equate number objects with symbols whose printed name is
>> the written representation of the number object.  This is a natural
>> mapping at best.
>
>
> That suggests that unnatural mappings are superior to natural ones.  I don't think so.  If anything, the use of ":" is arbitrary.  It could just as well have been $ or * or most other symbolic characters.

The use of ":" was discussed at length during the draft period of SRFI
97.  I didn't say that the mapping using ":" as a prefix is unnatural.

I don't think there is a need to break backward compatibility (with
established schemes) gratuitously.  I don't think I have more to add
to the discussion than I already wrote at this point.