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

Re: problems with rationale & design



Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

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.

Not at all. Please read more carefully.


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.

Well, I disagree.



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.


I'm insulting you? Hey, I didn't know you are that thin-skinned.
I guess you don't think your remarks to me are insulting, right?


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.

No, I don't have to convince anybody. Isn't it wonderful?



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

You wouldn't have any URLs handy? Or was it you?


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.

Minor differences that can be handled with a few little macros.

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.

Well, that of course totally convinces me!


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.

I expect those people to switch to SRFI-55 who want to write code that
is portable among several implementations. Not necessarily all, but
several.


cheers,
felix