Re: hash tables: print, read, print-readably
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Mike Kupfer writes:
> A more lenient interpretation would say I can use the fields that seem
> reliable enough. But figuring out, then keeping track of, which fields
> of which types are reliable would be a hassle.
? With very few exceptions, they're quite mnemonic, as in the case of
buffers.
But then I still have to remember which ones are the exceptions. And
someone who's coming in cold might not even realize that there *are*
exceptions.
Note also the (unreadable) print representation of hash tables used
in
the Hyperspec (the result of `(setq a (make-hash-table))' in
http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/18_aa.htm).
Doesn't prove anything, but it is a precedent for the format XEmacs
uses.
I don't mind it being unreadable, I just mind the misleading "size"
keyword.
Lobbying won't help, that's for sure. Patches might, though.
I just
don't see any proposals that are clear improvements over the status
quo.
The only other proposal I can think of would be to drop the "size"
keyword entirely.
Putting together a patch would take time away from other things, like
updating the MH-E package. I'm not even going to consider it without
some agreement over what the patch should do. (And that's more what I
meant by lobbying. I'm not trying to badger someone else into
implementing the change.)
mike
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta