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

Re: problems with rationale & design

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 55 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 55 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Please don't send me two copies of every reply.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:07:11AM +0200, felix wrote:
>>> "less typing" is not the main reason ....

Bradd wrote:
>> 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.

I see you hammering on only one point again and again, and it all comes
down to "less typing" in the end.

>>> 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?

Yes. It's another version of "less typing." You're quibbling over
trivialities here. What does it matter whether the dependent forms
appear inside or outside the parens? Personally, I think it makes more
sense to put them inside.

> I probably understand [SRFI-7] more than you do. I have in fact
> implemented it once. So please beware of false assumptions.

Now you're just making baseless insults. I've implemented it too.

>>> 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.

That's not what I asked for. Produce this "majority of Scheme users,"
because I'm not going to take your word for it. It doesn't matter
whether you're convinced; convince us.

> 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.

You haven't been listening very carefully, then.

>>> 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.

They don't provide SRFI-55. They provide some similar functionality,
with a wide variety of different syntaxes.

>> 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.

I've got one right here: Me. Yes, it's technically inferior.

Also, do you really expect PLT users to switch to your syntax, which
requires even /more/ typing than what PLT already provides? Your own
arguments work against you here.
Bradd W. Szonye