On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Daniel Hartwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 May 2013 21:55, Alaric Snell-Pym <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1) What about printed representations? I feel there should be a written > > syntax for important data structures in Scheme, and that literals should > > self-evaluate. Needless to say, I don't think "Oh, just write out code > > that will construct one" is very useful, as that only solves the problem > > for literals in source code - not for being able to write and then read > > an sexpr to communicate data across a channel. > > > > The problem with this is that e.g. a set is a collection of items > *and* also an equivalence predicate, which can be any arbitrary > procedure, and arbitrary procedures can not be written out. > That is true, but I imagine by far the most common case will be sets with eq?, eqv?, or equal? as their predicate. A syntax for just those sets would still be very useful. Noah Lavine
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
