[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: PRINT-PRETTY-HOOK (version 1)
- To: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@MULTIMAX.ENCORE.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: PRINT-PRETTY-HOOK (version 1)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 21 Sep 88 23:27 PDT
- Cc: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@MULTIMAX.ENCORE.COM>'s message of Wed, 21 Sep 88 16:35:32 EDT
I thought at one time that extensions to prettyprint were going to be handled as
specializations to a standard generic function in the same way that print-object
is specializable. I'd like at least to make sure that this is present.
There's too much that the prettyprinter needs to do "right" that a portable
prettyprinter can't do, that I wonder if this really solves the problem. That is
"while it is easy for a user to write a pretty printer" is it really easy for a
user to write a correct pretty printer? One that can deal with *print-circle*,
for example?