This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 1 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 1 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Dan Bornstein: > This seems like a good enough reason to "use up" another character to me: > It's a new semantic distinction, and it is going to be used fairly > frequently in SRFI-1 and, no doubt, other SRFIs too. Part of being a "good > saver" is knowing when the right time to spend is, and to spend it on good > things. > > I vote for "@". I don't believe we are dealing with new semantic distinction here: "linear update" is just another case of *underspecification*, not a completely new semantics. The idea here is not to specify a new way of handling lists but to discourage users from relying on certain implementation details. I believe that most implementations will indeed use destructive update implementations, and I don't thing there is a point in specifying how exactly those cons cells are modified. I vote for bang!