[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Using #.(MAKE-ARRAY ...
- To: greek@DEC-HUDSON.ARPA, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: Using #.(MAKE-ARRAY ...
- From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 85 13:00 EDT
- In-reply-to: The message of 12 Jun 85 08:56-EDT from greek@DEC-HUDSON
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 85 08:56:25 EDT
I have an uncomfortable feeling about the printer generating complex
function calls with #. as a way to print something. I'm not really
sure why it bothers me so much.
Well, for one, if I had some complex network of displaced arrays with
all sorts of hairy attributes, I think it would be as part of
some complicated data structure: an attempt to print them out
in such away that the reader, on reading-back-in, would create
an array "similar to lisp", but in no way part of the data
structure of my program at that time, is wholly bogus and misguided help.
Should we also adopt the convention that arrays which can't be printed
with #A for other reasons will be printed with #. Such things as
fill pointers, adjustability, displacement, etc. can't be represented
with #A. If we do this, then the printed representation is not
suitable for the :INITIAL-CONTENTS options, since that option won't
take an array. If we don't do this, the printer is really lying about
By my argument above, the more cases it uses #< (I think that's what you meant)
the better it is, and the fewer times it will lie about arrays.