The Racket reader reads a seven-element list there, not a mutable hash.
Looks like you're proposing to use a two-stage serialization format. One stage is `read` and `write`, and the other is `serialize` and `deserialize`. At the level of language design, what's the point of designing it this way? (Why does Racket design it this way, anyway?)
I can see not wanting to have cyclic syntax or syntax-with-sharing in the core language just because it's a pain in the neck to parse and another pain in the neck to interpret. Maybe that's reason enough to have a separate `racket/serialize` library.
But isn't the main issue here that Arc's `read` creates immutable tables when the rest of the language only deals with mutable ones? The mutable tables go through `write` just fine, but `read` doesn't read the same kind of value that was written out. If and when this situation is improved, I don't see where `racket/serialize` would come into play.
Hmm, all right. I didn't want to believe that was the point you were trying to make. In that case, I think I must not have conveyed anything very clearly in the `correcting-arc-read` comment.
I've been trying to respond to this, which was your response to that one:
"Racket also has mutable hashes created using `make-hash` rather than `hash`. It could just be that the tables are not serialised as something Racket reads as mutable hashes when deserialising it back again?"
In the `correcting-arc-read` comment, I used `make-hash` in the implementation of `correcting-arc-read`, so I assumed your first sentence was for the edification of others. I found something to respond to in the second, which kinda pattern-matched to a question I had on my mind already ("Can't the Racket reader just construct a mutable table since what was written was a mutable table?").
As for my response to your "No..?"...
One of the purposes of `correcting-arc-read` is that (when it's used as a drop-in replacement for Arc's `read`) it makes `readfile1` return mutable tables. So if anyone had to be convinced that a reader that returned mutable hashes could be implemented at all in Racket, I thought I had shown that already. When it looked like you might be trying to convince me of something I had already shown, I dismissed that idea and thought you were instead trying to clarify what your proposed alternative to `correcting-arc-read` was.
Seems like I've been making bad assumptions and that as a result I've been mostly talking to myself. Sorry about that. :)
Maybe I oughta clarify some more of the content of that `correcting-arc-read` comment, but I'm not sure what parts. And do you figure there are any points you were making that I could still respond to? I'd better not try to assume what those are again. :-p