The syntax with double quotes has been chosen arbitrarily to demonstrate the logic, not to possibly represent the final syntax. It demonstrates *local* reader extensions.
The rest of your post (the one regarding "#,") discusses an orthogonal topic. Of course, it can be used to wrap primitive lexical syntax like "#." that then calls a reader directly. Am Fr., 2. Apr. 2021 um 09:20 Uhr schrieb Jakub T. Jankiewicz < [email protected]>: > > > If you remember, we have two use cases: an entirely separate syntax (for > > which #lang is appropriate) and incremental extensions to existing > > syntaxes. The #. proposal is meant for the second case only. > > > > > 1 2 #.(my-reader "3 4 5") 6 7 > > > > > > > This makes editor syntax coloring, paren matching, etc. impossible, since > > everything would look like a string. > > I don't think that there will be any benefits with syntax like this, is > the same as writing read function yourself and call it on string. > > (my-reader "3 4 5") > > Having to use string on any new syntax is not very nice. My original idea > was > to add new syntax that looks the same as built-in syntax. > > This is any better then #,(foo 1 2 3) if you register function my-reader > you > have exactly the same #,(my-reader "3 4 5") > > I don't see any benefits of extending the parser if you're required to call > it like this. You can't use it to add missing syntax that was or will be > added to the language via R^nRS or SRFI. > > You can't add #u16 to the language if it don't have it already with this. > > -- > Jakub T. Jankiewicz, Web Developer > https://jcubic.pl/me >
