This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 83 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 83 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:51:34 -0800 From: Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: srfi-83@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lauri Alanko wrote: > So I suggest > > "hello" -> hello > "scheme://r6rs" -> (scheme r6rs) > > Only users of lesser programming languages are forced to stick with > strings to represent identifiers and structured data. No, "lesser languages" (which of course also support structured data, if not as conveniently as Lisp/Scheme) use strings because they are convenient and standrd. The advantage of using URIs strings is that they are standard, universal, and familiar. Which moves me to wonder if the Scheme Editors are planning on registering the "scheme:" scheme with the IETF and IANA? URI systax is an incredibly ugly thing, as anyone who has ever written a URI parser can tell you -- but there may well be some advantage in using URIs if there is some way to leverage all the existing URI/URL/URN infrastructure. I.e., if something really useful happens if someone uses "ftp://..."; in a Scheme module. If it is the case that there is this advantage, then the Scheme Editors need to register "scheme:" as an official URI scheme, otherwise we won't -really- be using URIs -- there will always be the danger that someone else could register "scheme:" with some -other- stntax and meaning, and then we wouldn't be able to use that new kind of URI in our Scheme modules... > We have symbols and s-exps. Let's use them. Why? Saying something is "un-schemish" is not a reason. What would using symbols and s-exp gain? What kind of operations would it make easier? Almost any operation on a URI requires a URI parser. Of course any S-expression representation also requires a parser -- but typically a much simpler one written in terms of `car', `cdr' and `eg?'. - Alan