Am Sa., 22. Apr. 2023 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <[email protected]>: > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 4:31 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen > <[email protected]> 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.
