[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: FORMAT-PRETTY-PRINT (version 5)
- To: masinter.pa%Xerox.COM@multimax
- Subject: Re: Issue: FORMAT-PRETTY-PRINT (version 5)
- From: Dan L. Pierson <pierson%mist@multimax.ARPA>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 88 13:27:13 EDT
- Cc: cl-cleanup%sail.stanford.edu@multimax
- In-reply-to: Your message of 02 Oct 88 13:31:00 -0700.
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
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.