-----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
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports