[R6RS] R6RS Unicode SRFI controversial issues
Anton van Straaten
Mon Jun 27 14:43:14 EDT 2005
Manuel Serrano wrote:
>>But as I said, I'm much more interested in having support for blocks of
>>unescaped text, than I am in the exact syntax or features used to
> We could also consider the syntax we have designed for Skribe. It is
> available at (see section 2.1):
> I think that it is superior to the #<< syntax because it allows escapes
> inside texts.
I think it's important to have a way to quote text without escapes, as a
low-level feature which tools can build on. With a syntax for unescaped
text, arbitrary escapes can be handled simply by wrapping quoted text in
a procedure call which performs the desired escapes.
This would allow libraries to support different escape mechanisms,
rather than imposing a single escape mechanism that may not be
appropriate for some applications.
The Skribe syntax provides a good example of the issue: while I'm sure
it's an excellent format for general documentation, it doesn't appear to
be as good for embedding C-style syntax in a Scheme program. The "]"
character is common in C-like languages, and the ",(" sequence can
easily appear in an argument list. Both of these would need to be
quoted in the Sk-expression syntax. Finally, the quoting mechanism
itself is likely to add the need for quotes of the quote sequence, in
The only general solution I can see here is to have a syntax that allows
arbitrary text to be quoted, without having to worry about quoting
undesired escape sequences.
More information about the R6RS