"Final" comments on RRRRS

[Chris Hanson <CPH@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>]

    Date: Fri, 15 Aug 86 15:22:44 EDT
    From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR at AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
    To:   Bartley%ti-csl.csnet at CSNET-RELAY.ARPA

        Date: Fri 8 Aug 86 15:20:50-CDT
        From: David Bartley <Bartley%ti-csl.csnet at CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

        -- Kent Dybvig has asked that the colon (:) be removed from
        the set of extended alphabetic characters (section 2.3).  I
        agree completely.  My joint implementations of Scheme and
        Common LISP need a reasonable syntax for Scheme procedures to
        refer to symbols in various Common LISP packages.  Using
        Common LISP's syntax seems best.

    I have no strong objection to this.  It's conceivable that it could be
    construed by the uninitiated as an endorsement of read-time packaging,
    but I think we should be able to guard against that.

    I would like to hear from people who object to the this (Hanson?)
    before making the change.  If the screams aren't too loud I'll do it.

I guess that I should respond to this.  I really, truly abhor the
read-time package system and would strenuously object to any such
thing being introduced into Scheme.  I have gone out of my way (a
little) to use colons in my code just to parody the package system
and, unfortunately, that would make my code non-portable given this
decision.

Understand, I have no really serious objections to this suggestion,
except that if anyone tries to define what `:' means when it appears
in an identifier, I promise to raise heck.  But I don't mind agreeing
to disagree about it.

And, of course, anyone who implements this change will not be able to
port my code without significant rewriting.  Sigh.  I guess that would
be your loss, not mine.

(Seriously, though, what would the symbol
`rtl:interpreter-call:lookup' mean in a system with such a syntax?)