Hi! Do you mean that in any case (in-readtable) form should have a priority over *readtable-alist*? Let's speculate about it a bit.
Could the change break something? I guess no: if someone have this form in the file, then it modifies *readtable-alist* already every time the file is loaded.
So it looks like this change can make no harm. I think we don't even need exception list for now - just we don't need to alter named readtables at all for this change. Does that sound like a truth?
If so, this is a part of what I had implemented already, so I can start re-applying it as soon as I find a time (in a several days).
2017-08-18 22:02 GMT+03:00, Luís Oliveira luismbo@gmail.com:
Tracking in-readtable forms and passing the readtable designator along in evaluation/compilation requests sounds consensual. Let's start with that, what do you think?
Cheers, Luís
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017, 17:15 73budden . budden73@gmail.com wrote:
Good idea, but this PR does not implement my current suggestion. I have to work on code for a while. Before I start, I'd like to know do you (or does anyone) see any more issues with the solution described?
2017-08-18 16:39 GMT+03:00, Luís Oliveira luismbo@gmail.com:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:03 PM, 73budden . budden73@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I didn't get what you meant :) Anyway, the quesion is still open if the change suggested would break someone's things, so I hope it is not a big harm to give more details.
I suggest we move on to pull request #278 then. Maybe you can start by rebasing/merging against latest master?
Cheers,
-- Luís Oliveira http://kerno.org/~luis/