[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Let's complete by Nov 1, 11:59pm EST

Alan Manuel Gloria <almkglor@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I was reading through Guile-devel and found this gem by Mark H. Weaver:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/guile-devel@xxxxxxx/msg10088.html
> Particularly the following exchange between Ludo' (>>) and Mark (>):
>>> Itâs also unhygienic, in the sense that programs that need it would
>>> typically have to start with a definition of $nfx$ & co., although these
>>> identifiers never appear literally in the neoteric code.
>>I agree that this is not ideal, but I see no way around it without
>>losing the benefits that these (optional) features are meant to provide.
>>Apart from the fact that $nfx$ et are meant to be defined by the user,
> 8<--- snip! read it at the address provided above
> The explanation might look good in the design rationale.

Feel free to use anything I've written on this subject in the SRFI-105.