On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:19 PM, John Boyle <[email protected]> wrote: >> We definitely cannot use the SRFI-38 semantics, which >> provide no equivalent to write-simple (i.e. no procedure >> which guarantees to be fast). > > I see a use case, where a user generates code with shared structure and > "write"s it to a file, then expects to be able to read that code back in and > execute it.
There are two motivational factors behind write-simple: speed and the desire to generate output that does not use the reader label notation. We both agree that write-simple is necessary, you're just claiming that speed is not as much an issue. My point about SRFI-38, however, was that it says: This SRFI permits but does not require replacing the standard (write) and (read) functions. which was very unfortunate, because you don't have a guaranteed write-simple (with or without error handling). -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
