This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 26 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 26 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
>>>>> "WP" == Walter C Pelissero <walter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: WP> Why an incomplete solution is bad? Simply because as much as you WP> needed (not very much) a solution for the cases this SRFI addresses WP> you will, sooner or later feel the need for a solution for the WP> remaining cases. So far I haven't. Given the number of lines I've written and the number of instances where I've wished for something like CURRY, I doubt that I ever will. WP> Why that? Because the remaining cases are not less likely [...] They are less likely in *my* code. I was just providing some empirical data. I agree that CURRY may be *too* general for most practical uses. The FN macro you provide, on the other hand, requires significant implementation machinery over CURRY, and arguably is not as easy to read. On the other hand, the implementation effort involved in CURRY is --- in my eyes --- still sufficiently small to warrant the added generality over the F you presented. WP> Curry2 is bad because you will have two macros for obviously similar WP> cases. L is bad because it will replace curry (this SRFI) in the long WP> run: why bother with a lesser macro if you are more confortable with WP> another one? WP> Common Lisp has some examples of redundancy of this sort. Sure, but we're not writing a language standard, we're writing a library proposal. The problem with Common Lisp is that the redundancy is not sufficiently modularized. There's no problem with redundancy in the SRFI process --- indeed we're expecting and soliciting a lot more of it. Will Clinger has some excellent thoughts on the issue at http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-6/mail-archive/msg00002.html -- Cheers =8-} M. Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla