Rejected mail

[sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)]

<cl_cleanup@eva.slu.se>... 550 Host unknown (Authoritative answer from name server)

Original message follows:
=====================================================================

Received: by Forsythe.Stanford.EDU; Mon, 19 Jun 89 10:26:58 PDT
Received: from cs.utah.edu by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 19 Jun 89  10:21:19
 PDT
Received: from defun.utah.edu by cs.utah.edu (5.61/utah-2.1-cs)
        id AA12676; Mon, 19 Jun 89 11:21:40 -0600
Received: by defun.utah.edu (5.61/utah-2.0-leaf)
        id AA26643; Mon, 19 Jun 89 11:21:38 -0600
 From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)
Message-Id: <8906191721.AA26643@defun.utah.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 89 11:21:36 MDT
Subject: Re: Issue: DATA-IO (version 7)
To: CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu, Mon, 19 Jun 89 11:47 EDT

I have two remarks on this proposal.

In section 1a, it says:

  If *PRINT-READABLY* is true, then printing any object produces a
  printed representation that the reader will accept.

This seems underspecified to me.  At least for implementation-defined
print methods, it ought to be stated what the relationship is between
the object that is printed and the object that is read in again is.
Can we use "similar as constants" here?

In sections 1c, 1d, and 1e, it uses "might" to describe the
interaction between *PRINT-READABLY*, *PRINT-LEVEL*, *PRINT-LENGTH*,
and *PRINT-ESCAPE*.  Is there some reason that we can't tie this behavior
down more definitely?

-Sandra
-------