[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: arithmetic issues
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Why no current implementation uses sparse arrays as the representation
> of (some) vectors? Or does any?
Maybe none has gotten around to it?
> If no implementation does a particular thing, then perhaps it's not
> a wise choice to do.
That's a fundamentally bogus argument. If there's a reason it's
unwise, then let's hear it. It needs to be a reason why it's *always*
unwise, not just why it's unwise in general-purpose Scheme systems.
(Though for the life of me I can't think of any reason there either.)
No Scheme implementation that I know of supports writing Scheme
programs that include identifiers written in the Devanagari script.
But that doesn't mean it's an unwise thing to do; it's just that there
aren't many Sanskrit users of Scheme yet.
> Leaving room for it only reduces programmer confidence and
> encourages them to rely on common practice instead of on standard
"Reduces programmer confidence"? Huh? Programmer confidence in what?
It's you that seems to have mistaken common practice for a standard
guarantee. Rewriting the standard so that it standardizes common
practice is not the solution.