[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Opaque syntax objects
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
If it is neccessary to wrap atoms, vectors, the empty list etc. then
the only data structure left, that isn't represented by a special
type is lists. Wouldn't it be simpler to demand all syntax to
be represented as a separate type?
I would not wrap vectors either. Still, you can think of syntax vectors and
syntax pairs as belonging to a special type, which happens to be a subtype
of vectors or pairs. At the end of the day, you have an extra field - does
it matter whether this field is kept with the object or separately in a
hashtable? Logically it is part of the object:
The hashtable entry /is/ the wrap.
Genericity is certainly more complicated theoretically, and part of me
is drawn to the purity of requiring all conversions to be written explicitly.
However, I do not think this would be necessarily simpler for users, make
programs concise and readable, or aid in the reuse of existing libraries.