RE: plists, alists, and hashtables

[Drew Adams]

> So as a first cut, maybe <(k1 . v1) (k2 . v2)> and
> <<(k1 . v1) (k2 . v2)>> would be a good syntax

The last thing we need in Emacs Lisp is to gratuitously hard-code
such syntax.  Half the point of Lisp is to let people define DSLs,
including their syntax.

Unfortunately, in Emacs Lisp we do not (yet) have reader macros.
But that is all the *more* (not less) reason not to hard-code
such syntax restrictions into the definition of Lisp itself.

Working on adding reader macros to Emacs Lisp would be (very!)
helpful.  Hard-coding < and << syntax is not helpful (IMHO).