[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: READ-CASE-SENSITIVITY (Version 1)
- To: Jeff Dalton <"jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK"@multimax.encore.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue: READ-CASE-SENSITIVITY (Version 1)
- From: Dan L. Pierson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 89 13:45:31 EST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 17 Feb 89 18:04:32 +0000. <email@example.com>
From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Issue: READ-CASE-SENSITIVITY (Version 1)
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
> but let's face it:
> *** READ is designed for reading programs (symbols, lists, structs, etc).
> *** It sounds like you are not primarily concerned with wanting
> "to use case distinctions in code". So, READ should not be changed.
READ is not just for reading programs, it is for reading data too.
Lists, symbols, etc. are used outside of source code, after all.
Is this really a controversial point?
I don't think so at all. The following is from page 365 of CLtL:
"The user is encouraged to turn off most macro characters, turn others
into simgle-character-object-macros, and then use READ purely as a
lexical analyzer on top of which to build a parser. It is
unnecesary, however, to cater to more complex lexical analysis or
parsing than that needed for Common Lisp."
The intent that READ be useful as a lexer for data or embedded
languages is clear. It's also clear that you're asking for an
extension to the lexer's power that is not required for Common Lisp.
I think that it is a reasonable and useful extension if properly
You can put me down as likely to support a readtable-based case
control extension, however Peck's point that such an extension must
not conflict with the new character proposal is important.