Noah Lavine scripsit: > I'd like to add another option for ways to represent symbols. As far > as I know, it's standard to write unprintable objects, like > procedures, with "#<procedure>" or something similar. How about using > the "#< ... >" syntax for symbols? It would probably look something > like #<symbol "......">.
I think there's a pretty strong convention that #<...> is for non-rereadable objects (it explicitly signals an error in the default Common Lisp readtable), whereas the whole point of |...| and friends is to make the symbol rereadable. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan If a traveler were informed that such a man [as Lord John Russell] was leader of the House of Commons, he may well begin to comprehend how the Egyptians worshiped an insect. --Benjamin Disraeli _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
