Hi Marc,

Thanks for your extensive review. I’ll respond to your earlier message
after I’ve had a chance to think about it carefully.

On 2025-01-24 18:41 +0100, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> I would like to make the following hopefully constructively read
> suggestion that gives implementations enough freedom but also allows
> implementations to address the points I raised in the previous post:
>
> (1) Provide only a single procedure
>
> (generate-symbol [pretty-name])
>
> that returns a symbol (in the sense of `symbol?') that may or may not
> be interned and that is guaranteed to be different in practice from
> any other symbol (*). An implementation may use PRETTY-NAME for
> printing purposes.

This is very similar to Chez’s gensym objects, and here is my complaint
about them: They are two-headed symbols. Only Chez supports symbols
with pretty and unique names, as far as I know, whereas uninterned
symbols are supported by a majority of Schemes.

More soon.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>