Thanks, Carl. I'd like to avoid the overhead of serialize/deserialize. I guess I missed that sets were in a different category than hashes with respect to this question. (I was assuming that since I can read in the write of a hash as a hash, I could do the same with sets. Is there a particular reason that's not the case?)
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > Wayne, > > You cannot read in a set. If you read in the result of print, you get > '(set 1 2 3), which is a list beginning with the symbol 'set, not a set. > Sets are a derived datatype using structs, not a primitive on recognized by > read and write. You can use the functions serialize and deserialize to > store sets, if you need to. > > --Carl > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Wayne Iba <i...@westmont.edu> wrote: > >> If I evaluate (write myset) for myset as (set 1 2 3), the format of the >> output is "#<set: 1 2 3>", whereas (print myset) produces "(set 1 2 3)". >> Naturally, I can read in the latter but not the former. From the docs, I >> believe the expectation is that we can rely on the output of write for >> reading, but not necessarily that of print. >> >> Am I missing something here or is this a problem with how racket is >> writing sets? (I'm using v5.3.5) >> >> Thanks, >> --Wayne >> >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> >> >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
