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

Re: problems with rationale & design

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