Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <xxxxxx@knm.org.pl> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <xxxxxx@becket.net> writes: > >> It is an explanation of why your appeal to tradition is ill-founded; >> the tradition actually points the opposite way. > > There is no tradition in not providing a read syntax for "error > objects". Really? Can you give me some pointers to the Lisp systems which do provide read syntax for all the error objects they have?