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

Re: strings draft (premature, need first class type definition support first?)

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

unfortunately likely true (although still wish it weren't).

> From: Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
>> This I suspect is possibly really what folks should be spending their time
>> to refine, because if scheme more natively supported the ability to define
>> new first-class data types/sub-types, and correspondingly extend it's core
>> procedures to be aware of them; numerous new facilitates and features could
>> be experimented with and refined, without having to require a language
>> revision or new implementation to enable it.
> I think you are on the scent of a red herring.