[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Sandra J Loosemore <email@example.com>
- Subject: issue HASH-TABLE-PRINTED-REPRESENTATION
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 18:15 EDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <8810132126.AA19904@defun.utah.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 88 15:25:59 MDT
From: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
I like the syntax suggested in what is described as "yet another proposal"
but the way it specifies the optional parts is broken. It should be
#[size]H([type [rehash-size [rehash-threshold]]] (ki vi)*)
It is very important that the syntax for expressing hash table options
be extensible, and therefore keyword-based. Any syntax like this that's
positional, and furthermore assumes that all option values are
non-lists, is simply not acceptable. Putting the size out there in
front is weird, too.
I still don't see why #. can't be used, but that's a minor point.