Re: Issue: FORMAT-PRETTY-PRINT (version 5)

[Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>]

    I attempted to rewrite this as a change-to-language instead of
    change-to-book, and came across some problems.

If you want, I'll try reword this but I'd rather we were able to vote
on it next week since none of your proposed changes seem substantive.
In other words, can we vote on the sentiment next week and rewrite it
for January?

                                                   I don't think that the test
    case is accurate; there is no specification about the possible interaction
    of *print-pretty* and *print-escape*; our pretty printer, for example,
    creates significantly different output *print-escape* is NIL, and so the
    two pairs are not identical except for the appearance of string quotes. 
    
OK, I'll change the description of the test result.

    I think the intent of the proposal is to force list structures to be
    printed "pretty", but we've not really defined what "pretty" is ever.
    Unless that's specified, the only case over which we have control is in the
    interaction with user written print functions for structures.
     
Neither CLtL nor this proposal try to define what "pretty" list
structures are, but both assume that many implementations will do
something different and both provide access to that unspecified
difference.  I think that both the vagueness and the access are useful
in most implementations.