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

Re: specification by implications and example



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/