[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: FORMAT-PRETTY-PRINT (version 5)
- To: Masinter.PA@Xerox.COM, pierson%mist@MULTIMAX.ARPA
- Subject: Issue: FORMAT-PRETTY-PRINT (version 5)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 88 02:27 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: <881002-133141-2667@Xerox>
I expect to eventually support this proposal, but would like to see a
couple of issues dealt with first...
Date: 2 Oct 88 13:31 PDT
Specify that FORMAT does rebind any of the printer control
variables (*PRINT-...) except as follows:
I assume you mean "...does not rebind..."
Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to NIL, *PRINT-RADIX* to NIL, and
*PRINT-BASE* to the value of the first argument iff a first
argument is specified.
I'd say: ``Iff a first argument is specified, binds *PRINT-ESCAPE*
to NIL, *PRINT-RADIX* to NIL, and *PRINT-BASE* to the
value of the first argument.''
It doesn't really matter what happens if there is no argument, but
this would avoid any silly questions on the subject.
Actually: CLtL doesn't say the English ordinal is base-10. One
could imagine expecting that someone might want
(LET ((*PRINT-BASE* 8)) (FORMAT NIL "~R" 8))
Presumably this is not what anyone does, but perhaps we should
shoe-horn that in here (to avoid writing up a whole issue for such
a silly little detail). ... Or perhaps we should say that in the no
argument case it binds *PRINT-BASE* to 10, and let people infer from
that that it's insensitive to bindings of *PRINT-BASE* in the
Binds *PRINT-ESCAPE* to NIL.
Again, one might expect that
(LET ((*PRINT-BASE* 8)) (FORMAT NIL "~E" 8.5))
should return "10.4". Maybe we should say that *PRINT-BASE* is
bound to 10, etc. just to avoid this issue?
The test case is very cute but overly complicated and doesn't
address the full scope of the proposal.