Marc Feeley wrote:
I agree that the API of parameters is not abstract, and that this could be improved with separate procedures (or syntax) for creation, mutation, reading and binding of dynamic variables. I did not propose this because of the convergence by many implementations to the "parameters" API and I wanted to place minimal burden on implementors/users of this API. Moreover, the main point of SRFI 39 is to propose the "right" semantics for dynamic binding in the presence of threads.
I have to agree with Mr.Preprocessor, here. A "fresh" API would make it much easier for implementors and users, alike. One question: Gambit already has `dynamic-ref', etc. Wouldn't it make sense to use that (or something based on it's syntax) instead of parameters? The only implementations I know that provide this are Gambit (where I don't know how this interacts with threads) and SLIB (which doesn't have threads). This looks like a possible alternative that could in fact please anyone... cheers, felix