|
|
|
|
|
by mjn
4505 days ago
|
|
I think this comes down to some historical baggage around the original idea that people would just use association lists ("alists") by default, while hashtables would be an advanced feature used mainly in the optimization phase, when profiling indicated that alist lookups were a bottleneck. The alist literal is a lot friendlier: '((name . "andrew") (location . "sf"))
(Incidentally, you probably don't really want 'name and 'location to be strings.)It's curious that no quasi-standard reader macro for hash literals developed, though. |
|
It's not a lot of code or too complex to do that, but it's not obvious either and some people got it wrong or do it differently and I think that made reader modifications less common than they otherwise might have been.
I haven't looked too closely at the details but some of cl21's changes look like they might try to address this issue.