[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Formal comment #154 resolution not implemented

---
This message is a formal comment which was submitted to formal-comment at r6rs.org, following the requirements described at: http://www.r6rs.org/process.html
---
Submitter: John Cowan
Email address: cowan at ccil.org
Issue type: Defect
Priority: Minor
Component: Syntax
Report version: 5.93
Summary: Formal comment #154 not implemented
The resolution to formal comment #154 (which proposed that (), vectors,
and bytevectors be made self-evaluating) stated:
	Generally, Scheme has often favored uniformity over succinctness,
	which is also why vector datums are not literals.  However,
	bytevector datums will be made self-evaluating in the next draft
	of the report.
However, bytevectors are not self-evaluating in R5.93RS per report
section 3.3.4.  I propose that they be made so, and that the rejection
of self-evaluating vectors be reconsidered as well.  There is a clear
reason not to make symbols and pairs self-evaluating, but not so for
the other datum types.
-- 
H?ggledy-p?ggledy / XML programmers            John Cowan
Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is      cowan at ccil.org
Unicode weenies and / Fran?ois Yergeaus.