[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Splitting SRFI-10 into three?
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:58:16 GMT
Let me try to restate your suggestions, to make sure I know
what you were saying.
... SRFI-10 proposes another, formal and generic, way of extending
external representations of scheme values, namely, via a #,(<symbol>
<datum>*) form. A particular SRFI-X that introduces a new data type
simply should pick up the appropriate <symbol> and decide upon
Am I right it representing your position?
It's not *my* position, it's my guess as to *your* position.
My suggestion dealt with new external representations in general, not
just external representations of new data types. This would include
an SRFI with your
#,(pi) #,(epsilon) #,(Infinity) #,(NaN)
Furthermore, consider "variable constants", for example,
#,(os-type). When the reader scans the code, it replaces #,(os-type)
with a literal symbol, e.g., Solaris, HP-UX. ...
Why not just use macros for this? As soon as you add a new level
you get problems because later levels cannot talk to earlier ones.
If the program cannot make use of the information before macro-expansion
time there is no utility in providing it at read time.
You're saying that SRFI-10 has nothing to implement. Yet it
extends the syntax of Scheme, and thus requests that a Scheme reader
at least recognize the #,() form. Currently it does not.
It does not extend the syntax of Scheme. You say so yourself:
When a non-SRFI-10 compliant reader comes
across a #,(foo) form, it immediately throws an error. When a SRFI-10
compliant reader sees the same form and does not know what to make of
the 'foo' tag, the reader reports generally a different kind of
The Scheme reports say nothing about the behavior of programs that are
grammatically incorrect, including whether an error is reported. All
legal programs that use SRFI-10 are just as legal without it. SRFI-10
does not extend the syntax or change the language in any way.
I guess you were saying that SRFI-10 was way overloaded.
I am saying that I do not understand what SRFI-10 is proposing.
It talks about read-time evaluation without providing a mechanism
for doing read-time evaluation. Either remove the talk or add the