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

Re: Predefined nfx considered harmful

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Shiro Kawai:
> Thanks for the revision.   I'm going to implement it in Gauche
> and try it out.

Thanks so much!  Again, I believe experimentation is the only true test.  And in any case, there's no point in writing this stuff down unless it is *implemented*.

> On 'nfx': I think your concern about users relying on
> implementation-dependent extention inadvertently is reasonable.
> My $.02 is that you just say "if an implementations claims it's
> srfi-105, leave nfx unbound; if an implementation wants to put some
> default meaning on nfx, call it something other than srfi-105."


If I don't hear soon from someone, I plan to put in text like that.

> Of course a srfi-105 implementation may supply a library that binds
> nfx and let users load the library explicitly if they desire.

Absolutely!  But when a library is loaded, it's be obvious in the source code that there's a library dependency.  What worries me is silent dependencies.  I want to avoid the case where a {...}, used in a certain way, could create a quiet implementation dependency.  That's best avoided.

--- David A. Wheeler