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

Re: let-fluid problem

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/