Issue: HASH-TABLE-PRINTED-REPRESENTATION (Version 1)

[Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

I liked version 1 of HASH-TABLES-PRINTED-REPRESENTATION. I thought
it was simple, useful, and stylistically in keeping with existing
techniques.

JonL's point about losing attributes is interesting, but I would not
want to see his comments either keep the simple and useful thing Dave
is proposing from going in. I would also not want to see him force
Dave into either hairing up the proposal in a way that either doesn't
pass at all, or that does pass and leaves us with a maintainability
problem.

In particular, the #nH(type s t ...) notation is cute, but has a
certain ``kneejerk reaction'' quality to it. I'm afraid that later we'll
find other attributes that need to be in there and some may not fit
so gracefully. For example, this notation exploits the fact that no
useful attribute of a hash table is a non-atom -- if we had such attributes
later, we might not trivially be able to extend it.

I might propose #nH({keyword value}* {entry}*) but it's even more verbose
than what Dave has already said is too verbose for his uses.

So I think we should go with pretty much what Dave proposed and then
in a separate proposal bring up the issue of losing information and address
#H, #A, strings, etc. at the same time.

Also, unrelated to any of this, I think the "Cost to Implementors" (called
"Adoption Cost" in Dave's writeup) needs to be ammended to talk about
modifying not only the printer but also the reader.