Marc Feeley <xxxxxx@IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:
> Of course you can shoot yourself in the foot if your new code does
> (parameterize (...) (some-other-function-than-write)).

Or even:

        (parameterize (...)
           (write
            (your-object-generation-function-with-debugging-code-underneath)
            port
            ))

In the absence of good Scheme debuggers (of which I am finding that
Gambit's is among the best), this is problematic. Yes, I can simply
let-transform the above, but Michael's point is about parameterize
having the wrong scope. This is why I prefer using a readtable as a
third param to write. It attaches the altered behavior to the correct
scope, the single write call. You alternative about associating a
readtable with a port is better than parameterize, and may even be
handy wnough to put up with the potential for nasty surprises, I just
haven't thought about it enough yet. The dynamic extent of the
parameterize call is simply *not* correct.

david rush
--
In a profession plagued by, "when all you have is a hammer, everything
looks like a nail," we get really excited when someone is able to come
along and prove that everything really *is* a nail if lambda is the
hammer.                         -- Bruce R Lewis (on comp.lang.scheme)