Re: [Chicken-users] A question about keywords and symbol->string

Evan Hanson writes: > Anyway, to get a string that *looks* like a keyword, the easiest option > is probably to go via the written representation with something like: > >(format "~s" foo:) > > However note that this is sensitive to the keyword-style parameter, as > hinted

Re: [Chicken-users] A question about keywords and symbol->string

Hi there, On 2017-03-16 17:22, megane wrote: > Currently symbol->string strips any keyword prefixes when applied to > keywords (e.g. (symbol->string 'foo:) returns "foo"). Is this correct > behavior? That's the correct behaviour, yes. symbol->string basically ignores keywords and treats them

[Chicken-users] A question about keywords and symbol->string

Hello, Currently symbol->string strips any keyword prefixes when applied to keywords (e.g. (symbol->string 'foo:) returns "foo"). Is this correct behavior? Is there a way to get the full symbol name (i.e. #:foo -> "#:foo", and foo: -> "foo:")? Little background follows.. I was trying to define