I agree entirely; the language of the text should make that intent clearer!
John Cowan <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
