Re: Syntax for symbols is more permissive than R6RS

[Neil Jerram]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> I would be inclined to not change the reader's default behavior, i.e.,
> to remain at least as permissive as in 1.8, so as to not cause
> gratuitous incompatibility (we could even add unit tests to make sure we
> don't remove them inadvertently.)
>
> However, it may be a good idea to have a reader option asking for
> strict(er) conformance.

I agree.  I'd prefer to leave the permissiveness intact until we have
a specific reason to change particular cases.

Regards,
        Neil