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

Re: specification by implications and example

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 17 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 17 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Matthias Felleisen <matthias@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> The question is not whether this is a procedure call (believe me I know some
> Scheme)

Believe me I know.  I was unsure what you meant by your question.

> From the other remarks in your response, it seems you don't mean
> procedure call at all but something that looks like a procedure call
> but only for some small set of procedures (car, cdr, string-ref).

No.  I mean it for any procedure call where the procedure has
a defined setter.

> At least you didn't bring address-of calculations from C.

I know I'm not the Scheme insider you are, but was that really
called for?

> Also, there are Schemes out there that implement define-syntax.

Yes, I've implemented one of them.

> It seems to me
> that what you want to add can be implemented in define-syntax,

Well, sort of.  You need a way to access the builtin R5RS version of
set!.  Also, I wasn't sure that ((setter proc) arg ... value) was a valid
template, but re-checking R5RS seems to show that it is.

Anyway, I think my previous message gives a define-syntax definition.
I agree it should be added to the SRFI.

> posted with a test suite. Others have done something like this.

Most of them have not provided a testsuite.

> Would it be too much to ask for a R5RS-style specification of SRFI's that
> extend/modify Scheme's core syntax and semantics?

It would also be nice to have specification of Scheme.  R5RS makes a lot of
things underspecified, most glaringly macro expansion.
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://www.bothner.com/~per/