-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11-03-12 23:20, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
> I agree entirely; the language of the text should make that intent
> clearer!
>
> John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
> Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:
>
>> Relatedly, having just read string->symbol and symbol->string,
>> is it clear whether the strings should contain the escaped
>> version of the symbols, or directly be the sequence of characters
>> that make up the symbol after escaping? I think it should be the
>> latter. It talks of the string as the *name* of the symbol, but
>> browsing around the text doesn't make it immediately apparent to
>> me what the relationship between a symbol, its name, and its
>> written representation are.
>
> It should definitely be the unescaped form.  If you want the
> escaped form, use `read` or `write` and a string-port.

Shouldn't these functions be each others inverses as the names so
strongly suggests? Which of the options unescaped/escaped follows from
that?

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk9fGXQACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xgwwCglYNDUd46KC1YwGcLV6xiY/5N
J5wAnRQKBuLzcjgjZzaEnpTnolKAJiu7
=REBm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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