This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 58 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 58 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005, Per Bothner wrote: >campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> I think it would be perfectly fine, except for backwards compatibility >> problems, to flush the #(...) vector syntax in favour of a more general >> array syntax. > >Perhaps we should should flush the (a b c) syntax for #,(list a b c) ? > > I'm confused as to why using SRFI 10 makes things >> 'second-class,' however. What makes SRFI 10 degrade the class of what >> it is used to represent? There seems to be a great deal of aversion to >> SRFI 10 here that I don't understand. > >It's aesthetic. If you don't understand it, I don't know how to explain >it. I think I agree with Mr. Bothner here. SRFI-10 syntax is excellent for user-defined types, for types such as time introduced by libraries, etc. I value SRFI-10 because it makes the scheme type system *extensible*, not because I think it's particularly excellent syntax for any particular thing. Arrays, properly supported, are not an extension. They're a core language feature like lists. They deserve their own syntax. Bear