Re: issue HASH-TABLE-PRINTED-REPRESENTATION, v.2

[masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

If someone brings a new draft to the March 89 X3J13, we can
put it on the agenda and discuss it. 

- - - - - - - -

Return-Path: <CL-Cleanup-mailer@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Redistributed: xerox-cl-cleanupâ??.pa
Received: from SAIL.Stanford.EDU ([36.86.0.194]) by Xerox.COM ; 08 DEC 88 12:24:47 PST
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Dec 88  12:21:22 PST
Received: from Semillon.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 08 DEC 88 12:00:50 PST
Date: 8 Dec 88 12:00 PST
 From: masinter.pa
Subject: Re: issue HASH-TABLE-PRINTED-REPRESENTATION
In-reply-to: masinter.pa's message of 14 Nov 88 15:50 PST
To: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu, Dave.Touretzky@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Message-ID: <881208-120050-4123@Xerox>

I like Kent's idea 

" I (KMP) made a note to myself that since #S(ARRAY ...) and 
 #S(HASH-TABLE ...) couldn't possibly be meaningful, one might define
 #S to be the generalized constructor for things other than structures.
 So #S(ARRAY ...) could be used to print arrays with attributes that
 would otherwise be lost. eg, #S(ARRAY :CONTENTS ... :FILL-POINTER ...).
 Similarly, #S(HASH-TABLE :CONTENTS ... :SIZE ...) for the cases where
 hairy options wanted to be shown. #A and the simpler #H notation could
 then be used unless some option variable were set that said to really
 print the full-blown info."


However, this issue is not going anywhere -- there were certainly
more No's than Yes's to proceed with the latest draft.


Return-Path: <Dave.Touretzky@dst.boltz.cs.cmu.edu>
Received: from DST.BOLTZ.CS.CMU.EDU ([128.2.220.61]) by Xerox.COM ; 09 DEC 88 01:44:26 PST
Received: from DST.BOLTZ.CS.CMU.EDU by DST.BOLTZ.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Dec 88 04:43:48 EST
To: masinter.pa
cc: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
Reply-To: Dave.Touretzky@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: issue HASH-TABLE-PRINTED-REPRESENTATION 
In-reply-to: Your message of 08 Dec 88 12:00:00 -0800.
	     <881208-120050-4123@Xerox> 
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 88 04:43:36 EST
Message-ID: <3932.597663816@DST.BOLTZ.CS.CMU.EDU>
 From: Dave.Touretzky@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU

I like KMP's idea too.  In fact, if KMP's extension to #S were passed, I
would be happy to shelve the #H proposal.  I want hash tables to have a
READable printed representation, but I don't want to squander the remaining
# macro dispatch characters on obscure bits of syntax.  People will want to
type in arrrays as constants (with #A) much more frequently than hash
tables, so #A is needed but #H is diposable.

-- Dave