[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue HASH-TABLE-PRINTED-REPRESENTATION
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Dave.Touretzky@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
- Subject: Re: issue HASH-TABLE-PRINTED-REPRESENTATION
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 8 Dec 88 12:00 PST
- In-reply-to: masinter.pa's message of 14 Nov 88 15:50 PST
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.