PS In case there is interest, I can write a SRFI around read-syntax/get-syntax.

Am Fr., 1. Aug. 2025 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
<xxxxxx@gmail.com>:
>
> I agree with what John said.
>
> Moreover, while "define-values" seems to be uncontroversial, getting
> "include" right (and not too underspecified) is hard. Racket tries to
> get it right, but has to offer different versions.
>
> Any version of include can be implemented using the R6RS procedural
> macro system, so any package that thinks it needs it can ship a
> suitable implementation right now.
>
> What I would find much more important than "include" and far less
> controversial would be a "read-syntax" or "get-syntax" procedure that
> works like a combination of datum->syntax and read (or get-datum), but
> may fill in source-location information. Having this, everyone would
> be able to write a feature-complete include.
>
> Marc
>
> PS The include form that would be specified by a SRFI would be like
> the R7RS form that is allowed to appear in programs and libraries but
> not in library headers. However, this has never seen much use; library
> header-include (which is different from it and which doesn't apply to
> R6RS) is what is used.
>
> Am Fr., 1. Aug. 2025 um 15:09 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:
> >
> > I believe the objection would be that it makes it impossible to assign a fixed semantics to an R6RS program or library, because the meaning of the argument is system-dependent, and more than that, what is included depends on the current state of the filesystem. A  library with `include` is not a library but a recipe for constructing one.
> >
> > I believe this objection could be met by defining a C-style preprocessor, of course based on S-expressions rather than lines of text. That's assuming that anyone cares about such a feature.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025, 5:45 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal <xxxxxx@nonceword.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Would there be interest in a SRFI which provided the R7RS ‘include’ syntax to R6RS programs?
> >>
> >> Precedent would be SRFI 244, which exists for no other reason than to provide the R7RS ‘define-values’ syntax to R6RS programs.
> >>
> >>
> >> Daphne
> >>