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/
>> >
>>
>