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

Re: let-fluid problem

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 15 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 15 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Lars Thomas Hansen <lth@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> All of these objections are reasonable, but they do not speak to the
> purpose of this particular SRFI.  The purpose of the SRFI is only to
> codify an already existing practice that has slight variations across
> implementations (namely, some protect the bindings with DYNAMIC-WIND and
> some don't).  I submitted it because I find myself using FLUID-LET in
> some of my programs, because it is a convenient mechanism for
> temporarily and reliably overriding the values of global variables.

I like fluid-let.  My claim is that fluid-let is more powerful and
more general than suggested by the srfi-15 specification.  The
question is: Do we want to specify fluid-let in a way that does not
work (or at least does not seem very appropriate) in the precense of
threads, or do we want a different specification?  I proposed a
different specification.

Specifically, can an implementation that follows the model I proposed
(for example Kawa) claim to be consistent with this srfi or not?
(Does it matter that Kawa does not yet implement full call/cc, and
when/if it does, will probably not do so by default?)
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://www.bothner.com/~per/