[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Issue: FORMAT-PRETTY-PRINT (version 3)

This version trys to specify a bit more.  What directives did I leave

References:    FORMAT (pp. 385-388), PRIN1 (p. 83), PRINC (p. 83),
               WRITE (p. 382), *PRINT-PRETTY* (p. 371)
Category:      CLARIFICATION
Edit history:  Version 1 by Pierson 3/4/88
    	       Version 2 by Pierson 5/24/88 (fix name typo)
	       Version 3 by Pierson 6/10/88 incorporate comments
Status:        For Internal Discussion

Problem description:

The FORMAT operators, ~A and ~S are defined to print their argument as
PRINC and PRIN1 respectively.  The text does not say whether or not
these FORMAT operators must obey the *PRINT-PRETTY* flag.


Add a header "Printer Control Variables" before the description of
*PRINT-ESCAPE* on page 370.

Add the following paragraph to page 386 just before the paragraph
starting with "It is an error":

    "The FORMAT function by itself binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to NIL and
    binds no other of the printer control variables.  Specific FORMAT
    directives bind exactly the printer control variables specified in
    their description.  While implementations may specify the binding
    of new, implementation specific printer control variables for each
    FORMAT directive, they may neither bind any standard printer
    control variables not specified in description of a FORMAT
    directive nor fail to bind any standard printer control variables
    as specified in the description."

Add the following to the descriptions of the following FORMAT

    Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to NIL.

    Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to T.

    Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to NIL, *PRINT-RADIX* to NIL, and
    *PRINT-BASE* to 10.

    Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to NIL, *PRINT-RADIX* to NIL, and
    *PRINT-BASE* to 2.

    Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to NIL, *PRINT-RADIX* to NIL, and
    *PRINT-BASE* to 8.

    Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to NIL, *PRINT-RADIX* to NIL, and
    *PRINT-BASE* to 16.

    Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to NIL, *PRINT-RADIX* to NIL, and
    *PRINT-BASE* to the value of the first argument iff a first
    argument is specified.

    Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to T.

    Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to NIL.

Test Cases/Examples:

		   (PRINT X)
		   (FORMAT T "~%~S " X)
		   (TERPRI) (PRINC X) (PRINC " ")
		   (FORMAT T "~%~A " X)))))

This should print four copies of the above lambda expression.  The
first pair should appear identical and the second pair should appear
identical.  The only difference between the two pairs should be the
absence of string quotes in the second pair.


FORMAT should interact with the printer control variables in a
predictable way.  This proposal is one of the two simplest possible
definitions and provides the most flexibility to the user.

A major advantage of this proposal is that the following two
expressions are guaranteed to have exactly the same effect:

    (FORMAT stream "~S" object)
    (PRIN1 object stream)

Thus use or non-use of FORMAT becomes a purely stylistic matter.

Current practice:

Ibuki Lisp and the TI Explorer obey the binding of *PRINT-PRETTY*.
Lucid Common Lisp always applies ~A and ~S with *PRINT-PRETTY* bound
to NIL.

Cost to Implementors:

While changing FORMAT to not bind *PRINT-foo* variables is trivial,
there are some painful implications.  How does a pretty-printing ~A
interact with MINCOL, etc?  How much of the user interface depends on
FORMAT in ways that might be uglified by pretty printing?

Cost to Users:

Truely portable code shouldn't be affected because existing
implementations are inconsistent.  Despite this, there are probably a
number of user programs in non-complying which will have to change
whichever way this is decided.

Cost of non-Adoption:

The interaction of FORMAT and the printer controlvariables (especially
*PRINT-PRETTY*) will remain undefined.  This will continue to make
portable Common Lisp programming harder than it need be.


Life will be easier for users in two ways: (1) one more portability
problem will be removed, and (2) users will be more likely to be able
to persuade environmental features like debuggers to print in their
preferred way.


The interaction between two related parts of output will be clarified
in a simple way.


Pierson feels that this is important because the ease of implementing
major system interfaces with FORMAT can unintentionally lead to less
flexibility for the user compared to an old-style PRIN1/PRINC/TERPRI
implementation.  This clarification would generate some up front work
but would make it harder for people to accidentally create restrictive

After discussion in the cleanup committee, this proposal has been
recast to explictly specify more of the behavior of FORMAT.