Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Lassi Kortela (09 Dec 2022 17:12 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Dec 2022 17:30 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Lassi Kortela (09 Dec 2022 17:53 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Lassi Kortela (09 Dec 2022 18:09 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Dec 2022 18:33 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Lassi Kortela (09 Dec 2022 19:13 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Dec 2022 19:20 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Lassi Kortela (09 Dec 2022 19:38 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Arthur A. Gleckler (09 Dec 2022 20:14 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Dec 2022 20:42 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Lassi Kortela (10 Dec 2022 13:35 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go John Cowan (09 Dec 2022 19:22 UTC)
Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Marc Feeley (09 Dec 2022 19:01 UTC)

Re: Unreadable Objects: current status and where to go Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Dec 2022 19:19 UTC

Am Fr., 9. Dez. 2022 um 20:13 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>:

> > I should also mention an argument that speaks against inventing a new
> > #? syntax:  The #-lexical syntax-namespace is small and precious, so
> > effectively doubling the syntax from #< to #< and #? for reader errors
> > may be a bit costly.
>
> I'm very sympathetic to that argument, and often deploy it myself.
>
> But unreadable objects are something fundamental, and the #<...>
> notation is fundamentally broken (which I didn't notice without your
> help; I've been looking at it for 10+ years so I had grown so accustomed
> to it that I didn't take it apart mentally!)

It is only "fundamentally broken" if you want that what comes between
#< and > to be readable using standard Scheme lexical syntax.  I am
not convinced that the latter is an important point.