Using #.(MAKE-ARRAY ...

[Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>]

    Date: Wed, 12 Jun 85 08:56:25 EDT
    From: greek@DEC-HUDSON

    I have an uncomfortable feeling about the printer generating complex
    function calls with #. as a way to print something.  I'm not really
    sure why it bothers me so much.
Well, for one, if I had some complex network of displaced arrays with
all sorts of hairy attributes, I think it would be as part of
some complicated data structure: an attempt to print them out
in such away that the reader, on reading-back-in, would create
an array "similar to lisp", but in no way part of the data
structure of my program at that time, is wholly bogus and misguided help.
    Should we also adopt the convention that arrays which can't be printed
    with #A for other reasons will be printed with #.  Such things as
    fill pointers, adjustability, displacement, etc. can't be represented
    with #A.  If we do this, then the printed representation is not
    suitable for the :INITIAL-CONTENTS options, since that option won't
    take an array.  If we don't do this, the printer is really lying about
    the array.
By my argument above, the more cases it uses #< (I think that's what you meant)
the better it is, and the fewer times it will lie about arrays.
    - Paul