Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ptsfa!ames!husc6!ut-sally!utah-cs!defun.utah.edu!shebs
From: shebs%defun.utah.edu.uucp@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: lisp environments
Message-ID: <5178X@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jan 88 00:00:00 GMT
References: <487@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <460@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <13786@think.UUCP> <5036@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Sender: news@utah-cs.UUCP
Reply-To: shebs%defun.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs)
Organization: PASS Research Group
Lines: 17

In article <5036@sdcrdcf.UUCP> darrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer) writes:

>No, CL doesn't PREVENT doing it, but it really makes it hard to import
>"standard" CL source files into such an environment without loss of
>information, mainly because reader treatment of comments, #+ and #- is hard
>to preserve for editing and subsequent recreation on output.

Comments are pretty easy to structureify, takes about two lines of code for
the redefinition of ;.  #+/#- slightly harder, because although you can
always represent even bizarre objects by retaining the input form as a
string (which is always possible, eh?), you would still have to write your
own version of a suppressed reader that would return the uninterpreted
goop.  CL falls down by not requiring the reader to return the string, but
it doesn't seem like it would be very hard for implementations to provide...

							stan shebs
							shebs@cs.utah.edu