CLHS: Issue SHARP-O-FOOBAR Writeup

#

## Issue SHARP-O-FOOBAR Writeup

    Forum:		Public Review
    Issue:		SHARP-O-FOOBAR
    References:	Loosemore's public review comment #5
    		#b, #o, #x, #r reader syntax
    		  (sections 2.4.8.7 to 2.4.8.10, pages 2-30..2-31)
    Category:	CLARIFICATION
    Edit history:	21 Dec 1992, Version 1 by Loosemore
    Status:         Proposal CONSEQUENCES-UNDEFINED passed (8+2)-1 on
                    letter ballot 93-302.

    Problem description:

      Is #ofoobar valid syntax?  In other words, what happens if the
      object following #b, #o, #x, or #r doesn't have the syntax of
      a rational in the given radix?

    Proposal (SHARP-O-FOOBAR:CONSEQUENCES-UNDEFINED):

      Clarify that the consequences are undefined if the token following
      #b, #o, #x, or #r does not have the syntax of a rational in the given
      radix.

    Rationale:

      At least some implementations signal an error.  Other implementations
      apparently just rebind *READ-BASE* and call READ recursively.

    Current practice:

      Lucid, CMU CL, and AKCL all signal an error.  WCL reads #ofoobar
      as the symbol FOOBAR.

    Cost to implementors:

      None.

    Cost to users:

      None, since the behavior already differs among implementations.

    Aesthetics:

      Being explicitly vague is better than being implicitly vague.

    Editorial impact:

      Adding one sentence to each of the four referenced sections.

    Discussion:

Copyright 1996-2001, Xanalys Inc. All rights reserved.