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

Re: where is srfi-17 going?

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.

Shriram Krishnamurthi <shriram@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Per Bothner wrote:
> > Still, there are at least two Scheme dialects that *do* implement
> > extended set!, so it seemed to make sense to make a srfi for it.
> In the abstract, yes, it makes sense.  But you said the other
> implementation is Guile, which (imo) isn't reeking of design taste.
> Indeed, I hope the SRFI process can be just as fruitfully applied in
> reverse: to use the discussions on SRFI lists to improve existing
> Scheme implementations.

another one is STk.

> I would note that nobody from the Guile community has spoken up to
> defend Guile's decision to add extended SET!, or addressed any of the
> objections that have come up to it.  I'm CCing this message to Mikael
> Djurfeldt, an active Guile proponent, in the hope that the only reason
> we haven't heard from the Guile community is that nobody from there is
> reading this thread (which would itself be sad).

I count at least two people (including myself).

as to the discussion at hand:

I, like Per, have not so far seen a convincing argument against the
conflated mutator syntax.  and I don't like the idea of multiplying
syntax gratuitiously, but that's just me.

> 'shriram


The whole idea of modules is so separatist, anyway.  Can't we all just
get along?                                               -- Jim Blandy