Re: Compatible support for multiple values in SRFI-45

[Eli Barzilay <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

30 minutes ago, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> 
> My proposal also supports multiple expressions with an implicit begin in
> 'delay'.  It's true that we're closing off that possibility for 'eager',
> but it would be trivial to define a nicer macro in terms of our 'eager',
> e.g.: [...]

Obviously.


> > to maintain a uniform interface where `eager' and `delay' have the
> > same interface.
> 
> I agree that it's unfortunate to destroy the symmetry between
> 'eager' and 'delay', but I see no way to support multiple values
> without either destroying that symmetry or breaking compatibility
> with SRFI-45.

IMO, having a good, uniform API is *far* more important than keeping
`eager' a function.  Especially in this case, it is most likely going
to be used in places where `delay' would appear, and therefore not
having it be a proper function is unlikely to cause problems.

FWIW, in the N years since we switched our implementation, there has
been no complaint about it.


> If you can suggest a better way to add support for multiple values
> that is compatible with SRFI-45, I'd be glad to hear it.

Write a new short srfi which will say "same as srfi-45, except that
`eager' is a macro", then add multiple values.  Seriously.

But YMMV, of course.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!