Bruno Haible <bruno@...> writes:
> Christophe Rhodes wrote:
>> I'm inclined to agree with your reasoning more than you are, then:
>> that printing the radix is not required, because *print-readably* only
>> manages printing readably relative to the standard readtable.
> Huh? I cannot follow the logic. The spec says that
> "printing any object O1 produces a printed representation that, when
> seen by the Lisp reader while the standard readtable is in effect,
> will produce an object O2 that is similar to O1."
> This spec does not mention the value of *print-base*, neither for the
> printing phase, nor for the reading phase. Therefore the sentence should
> hold regardless of the value of *print-base*, which in my example was
> 5 and 10 respectively.
> You seem to deduce from the non-mention of *print-base* that it should have
> the same value in the reading phase than in the printing phase. This is pure
Sure, but the problem with this is that one can take this to
absurdity: consider printing a symbol foo:bar. Should this be printed as
#.(export (intern "BAR" "FOO") "FOO")
#.(progn (or (find-package "FOO") (make-package "FOO"))
(export (intern "BAR" "FOO") "FOO"))
or something even more complex? "The spec does not mention the
possibility of packages being altered, neither for the printing phase,
nor for the reading phase. Therefore the sentence should hold
regardless of the state of the package hierarchy."
If you have a clear distinction between those things that are allowed
to differ between printing and reading and those which aren't, then by
all means please post it and we can discuss it; until then, please
refrain from dismissing concerns and alternative interpretations as
"pure imagination": there's no real need for that on technical mailing