Re: [Scheme-reports] Symbol escapes - clarification

[Alaric Snell-Pym <alaric@x>]

I agree entirely; the language of the text should make that intent clearer! 


John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:


Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:

> Relatedly, having just read string->symbol and symbol->string, is it
> clear whether the strings should contain the escaped version of the
> symbols, or directly be the sequence of characters that make up the
> symbol after escaping? I think it should be the latter. It talks of the
> string as the *name* of the symbol, but browsing around the text doesn't
> make it immediately apparent to me what the relationship between a
> symbol, its name, and its written representation are.

It should definitely be the unescaped form.  If you want the escaped form,
use `read` or `write` and a string-port.

-- 
John Cowan <cowan@x>             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
The peculiar excellence of comedy is its excellent fooling, and Aristophanes's
claim to immortality is based upon one title only: he was a master maker
of comedy, he could fool excellently.  Here Gilbert stands side by side
with him.  He, too, could write the most admirable nonsense.  There has
never been better fooling than his, and a comparison with him carries
nothing derogatory to the great Athenian. --Edith Hamilton, The Greek Way

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports