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

#scheme IRC relating SRFI-86 (2)



By Googling, I happened to see #scheme IRC, and all schemers benefit the
internet community.

The following are excerpts relating to `MU and NU substituting for VALUES and
CALL-WITH-VALUES, and their related LET-syntax' in c.l.s.(a rough draft of
SRFI-86).

2005-08-27

08:59:52 <Riastradh> Some people really surprise me.  Joo ChurlSoo has packed more nonextensible frills into what was originally a really basic binding form than any other macro I've ever seen except for LOOP, but even that at least is more complex than a simple binding form in the first place.
09:01:05 <Maddas> What is it about?
09:01:33 <Riastradh> All in conjunction with a 'whoosh' of point missage of multiple return values, and no rationale beyond 'CALL-WITH-VALUES is slow and clumsy.'
09:02:34 <Maddas> Hm, I already like Desktop Manager (Yes, I think I dismissed that possibility not too long ago). Thanks for the (implicit) suggestion.
09:03:42 <Riastradh> He invented this marvellous special form (MU arg ...) which expands to (LAMBDA (F) (F arg ...)).  Then he built ALET & ALET*, which include: MU-based multiple values, broken FLUID-LET semantics, rest-list parsing for optional arguments, a random facility for throwing CWCC into the mix, forced left-to-right evaluation, some complex form of named LET which allows for multiple MUs in the argument list or something...
09:05:11 <Maddas> Hold on, is this that uber-Lisp that someone (Joo ChurlSoo doesn't sound like the name I'm thinking of) proposed a while ago on c.l.s/c.l.l?
09:05:51 <Riastradh> No, this is just about four hundred lines of obfuscated tail-recursive SYNTAX-RULES macros.
09:05:58 <Riastradh> Perhaps more.
09:06:24 <Maddas> Oh, the other kind of fun :)
09:07:21 <forcer> Which SRFI?
09:07:31 <Riastradh> No SRFI.  Just c.l.s.
09:08:20 <Maddas> forcer: I find it sad that I had exactly that question in mind too when I first the line above ;-)
09:08:26 <Riastradh> I think he was prompted to build this because he discovered the ghastly notion that SRFI 71 didn't specify the order of evaluation, which he first discovered as a 'lambda inconsistency bug' in Scheme48.
09:08:41 <Riastradh> (SRFI 71 being the multiple-values-extended LET)
09:12:30 <forcer> ;-)
09:12:38 <forcer> Did someone tell him about SML yet?
09:27:21 <mejja> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/msg/799330b33a478136 O_O

-- 
Joo ChurlSoo