Hello again :)
On Mon 11 Apr 2011 15:08, Wolfgang J Moeller <w...@heenes.com> writes:
> Having any sort of escapes mixed with #{ }# notation would be incompatible -
> maybe you ought no longer generate #{ }# on output, but switch to R6RS escapes
> throughout. Since there has been (in my understanding) no way to read symbols
> containing "}#" so far, just keep the "transparent" treatment of those
> guile-private brackets on input.
We have a choice of ensuring that:
(equal? (with-input-from-string (object->string sym) read) sym)
or preserving the old behavior that introduced spurious backslashes in
the symbol names. Incidentally it does appear that }# could be read, in
theory, given the fact that }# in a name would be written out as }\#.
Strange stuff. I think interpreting \ as a general escape is compatible
with the intentions of that code, and \x...; is generally compatible as
well, if we assume that nobody was escaping x in their own code, because
Guile sure wasn't.
Anyway, I do think that providing an option to just use r6rs syntax for
serialization is a good idea. Unfortunately you can't do it in general,
because there is the #{}# case to deal with, but oh well.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
