This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 93 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 93 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.
At Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:08:09 -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Robby Findler scripsit: > > > > This makes programs much more difficult to understand, and this > > > for the sole reason of saving one to write two parens. I don't > > > think this is worth it. > > > > Seems like a pretty abstract argument, esp. when this seems to be > > common practice and without it, one cannot implement classes or units > > as macros. > > Of course you can. You just can't pretend that something is a Scheme-level > variable when in fact it's a member of a class. At Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:06:22 +0200, Jorgen Schaefer wrote (also in response to the above): > This is wrong. [ ... ] Seesh. Would you guys take the much more awkward clause "one cannot implement classes or units where variables bound by fields in classes or imports/definitions in units are not wrapped in parenthesis"? signing out, Robby