Subject: Re: Why learn Lisp
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 27 Aug 2002 20:09:38 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Adam Warner
| Scratch that. A large and more satisfying simplification would be the
| original text being associated with any individual symbol name the first
| time it is met by the reader (perhaps until the associated text is
| explicitly destroyed).

  What would happen to (defstruct foo ...)?  Would you have MAKE-foo or

  I have spent many hours working on various ways to make a case-preserving,
  lower-case Common Lisp work according to the standard, but I find myself
  stumped by macros that generate symbols by "concatenating" input symbols
  with symbols of its own making.  I have come to believe that this should be
  avoided at all cost, including writing out the symbols created by defstruct
  in full.  You see, what I want is for `intern´ and `symbol-name´ to use
  lower-case symbol names when I throw a switch, but if I also want a case-
  preserving reader, what comes out of defstruct is probably MAKE-foo.  To
  make this work, macros that call intern need to capture the state of the
  flag that modifies how `intern´ and friends work so that they would do the
  right thing as the macro writer intended when it was compiled.  This is
  pretty messy, so I have not taken then idea any further.

| The idea would seem to require the string information for each unique
| symbol to be retained forever (unless explicitly destroyed).

  Why do you think this is not how things work today?

Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.