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

Re: problems with rationale & design



Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

"less typing" is not the main reason ....


It was important enough for you to mention twice, and it's one of the
only things your proposal seems to offer over SRFI-7, so it looks like a
key point to me.

Well, then you are wrong. I mentioned several other points and mentioned
them countless times.



what also applies is that it doesn't require another pair of parens
(i.e. toplevel forms aren't toplevel anymore).


What? SRFI-7's PROGRAM form does not change top-level forms any more
than a top-level BEGIN does. You're blatantly misrepresenting SRFI-7
here.


I either need a separate file or I need an enclosing form.
With "toplevel" I mean s-expressions at the outermost level, not
nested inside other s-expressions. Now, is that clearer?


A very basic little issue, agreed, but why not make things easy?


Why not spell "create" as "creat"?

It looks to me like there's an even more basic issue: You don't
understand SRFI-7.


I probably understand it more than you do. I have in fact implemented
it once. So please beware of false assumptions.


How many syntactic issues are not aesthetic? SRFI-55 is a
*user-interface*, of course it's intended to be more aestethically
pleasing.

Moreover, I'm absolutely convinced that several, if not the majority
of Scheme users (yes, even newbies count), will find it more natural
and convenient.


Produce them, then. What you believe is irrelevant.

Huh? Look at some existing Scheme implementations, say, guile, gauche,
PLT, chicken, they all use some form of REQUIRE. I'm a pretty regular
reader of c.l.s and of several Scheme mailing lists, and I can't remember
hearing any complaints about it. I haven't heard anybody screaming for
SRFI-7 either.


Because most implementations already provide it (albeit under
different names).


You're using a strange definition of "already provide it" there.

In what way is it strange? REQUIRE, USE, USE-MODULE - it's all there.



SRFI-7 appears to be unpopular among Scheme implementations, so I
consider it a failure.


And your solution is to provide a technically inferior version of the
same facility?

Your definition of "technically inferior" is strange. Ask PLT users
whether they find REQUIRE is technically inferior.


cheers,
felix