Didier Verna <[email protected]> writes: > (format stream "... ~\e\ ..." #|...|# str #|...|#)
\ is already meaningful in strings, to escape \ or ". So you'd have to use ~\\e\\. > Of course, there are package issues. Maybe we would need a centralized > mapping between function names (what goes in ~\\) and actual symbols > denoting the actual function? Possibly with the possibility to override > the mapping by providing a package prefix in the ~\\ construct? I don't like it. > WDYT? Does something like that already exists[2]? The standard already allows control-strings to be functions. So you could write a cl:formatter-like macro with any extension you like. There's no need for any extension, just use CL. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}. _______________________________________________ pro mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
