-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/13/2012 08:52 AM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> Does the standard really need to specify a read/write syntax for > such symbols? I tend to think that specifying that symbol->string > and string->symbol are inverses is actually all the standard needs > to do. Then what should happen if WRITE is applied to an s-expression containing such symbols? I grant that the existence of objects such as ports and procedures, which cannot be WRITtEn and then READ back, already break round-trippability of arbitrary s-expressions, but I'd like to avoid *avoidable* unrepresentable values :-) ABS - -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9fMjUACgkQRgz/WHNxCGpvQgCfdW9ccwc7bF/G4pj2B7rj2Qts L/4AoIoxyM6GyPJunT8loK/Lt8m836hU =khzV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
