[no subject]

[Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>]

    Date: 15 May 1980 22:28-EDT
    From: Alan Bawden <ALAN at MIT-MC>
    To:   KMP
    cc:   GJC, BUG-LISP
    Re:   #.(TYIPEEK #\FORM)

    Why do it right when a kludge will suffice!  Come to think of it a lot
    of things could be implemented by doing #.(<random function>) like
    #.(or (status feature Multics) (read)) could replace #+Multics

    There is this problem that both these guys return a value that is left
    for read to return.  (my thing should read "(progn (read) nil)" so as
    to do the right thing.)  This is really all completely losing.
-----
Oops. I stand corrected. You want #.(PROGN (TYIPEEK #\FORM) (READ)) if you
are going to be (READ)'ing from the line before ... I am simply questioning
the usefulness of your construct. I claim that comments of the form you 
describe are hard to recognize in the editor if the #; falls off the screen 
to the top and you are left only with the ostensibly commented-out part in
view. Hence, I'd rather not give up a # char for that purpose.

-kmp

ps btw, for #+Multics you want  #.(COND ((STATUS FEATURE MULTICS) (READ))
					(T (READ) (READ)))