| From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <xxxxxx@knm.org.pl>
 | Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:45:41 +0200
 |
 | 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?
 |
 | Could you show an object which does not have read syntax in Lisp
 | *because* it's an error object?

In R5RS the eof-object has no read-syntax.  If it did, then calls to
READ would be unable to distinguish between an actual end of file and
an eof object written in a file.