This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
| From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx> | Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:45:41 +0200 | | Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: | | >>> It is an explanation of why your appeal to tradition is | >>> ill-founded; the tradition actually points the opposite way. | >> | >> There is no tradition in not providing a read syntax for "error | >> objects". | > | > Really? Can you give me some pointers to the Lisp systems which | > do provide read syntax for all the error objects they have? | | Could you show an object which does not have read syntax in Lisp | *because* it's an error object? In R5RS the eof-object has no read-syntax. If it did, then calls to READ would be unable to distinguish between an actual end of file and an eof object written in a file.