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

Re: Just provide procedural interface

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Per Bothner wrote:

Andre van Tonder wrote:
In conclusion, the procedural/reflection interface is economical,
clean and simple. I suggest removing the syntactic libraries from the SRFI.

I disagree.  A declarative/syntactic interface is preferable:
- I believe it is easier to implement more efficiently.
- It is more compatible with (optional) static typing and type declarations.
- It is easier to optimize.
- I think it is easier to use and supports better style.

I.e. a declarative interface is what we should encourage libary writers, students, and textbooks to use. Hence it needs to be in R6RS. A procedural interface is useful for a few relatively rare/advanced applications, and it might be useful to *define* the declarative interface, but is definitely not as important in normal use.

You are right (I just posted a message where I changed my mind). Declarative is definitely better.

I believe it would be best if the declarative interface were (much) simplified. That there should only be one such layer, and that any "library" (non-primitive) features are best left for future SRFIs.