-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-03-12 23:20, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote: > 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.
Shouldn't these functions be each others inverses as the names so strongly suggests? Which of the options unescaped/escaped follows from that? Marijn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk9fGXQACgkQp/VmCx0OL2xgwwCglYNDUd46KC1YwGcLV6xiY/5N J5wAnRQKBuLzcjgjZzaEnpTnolKAJiu7 =REBm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
