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