[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: David A. Moon <Moon@scrc-stony-brook.arpa>
- Subject: Re: *print-circle*
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 87 10:18:26 MST
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Wed, 21 Jan 87 22:12 EST
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 87 22:12 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Symbolics' implementation of *print-circle* looks for shared
substructures, and it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of other
implementations also do so. It seems like a good idea.
This is the sort of information I was looking for. If this is indeed the
common practice, and we all agree it is a good idea, then it should be
standardized. So far I have had a number of requests for my code and
one reply from a person who thought this behavior already was specified
in the manual. I have yet to hear any negative comments.
I could imagine a user demand for separate control
of circularity detecting and sharing detection....
So could I, but I suspect that it would be harder to get everyone to agree
on introducing a separate control mechanism than it would for us to agree to
make *print-circle* do this, especially if *print-circle* already behaves
this way in many implementations.
I might add that an additional reason to provide a standardized way to
print shared structures is that it's not possible for an ordinary user
to write a general purpose routine to do this without knowing how to get
at the internal representation of structures generated via defstruct.