[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue PATHNAME-PRINT-READ, v1, and then some
- To: "Glenn S. Burke" <gsb@ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue PATHNAME-PRINT-READ, v1, and then some
- From: Dan L. Pierson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jan 89 10:55:41 EST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 05 Jan 89 23:26:00 -0500. <19890106042619.9.GSB@GANG-GANG.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
I would strongly prefer that a more generic approach be taken to
allocating reader syntax.
I agree. We really need to split the possible read macro characters
not given a meaning in CLtL into three groups:
1. Potential Common Lisp extensions. Your idea of #T as the only
hook here makes some sense.
2. Potential implementation extensions. I favor a small set of
of characters here as well.
3. Reserved for user extensions.
This isn't as easy as it may seem. One problem is what happens when a
popular user extension is incorporated in an implementation or even
standardized? The read-macro issues in Dick Waters' new pretty
printer are a good example; he uses #" as a read macro in a
particularly elegant way -and- this in conflict with currect practice
in KCL, which uses #" for pathnames.
At the least we need to officially recognize this problem and set some
guidelines for oursevles.