Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>>Well, then you are wrong. I mentioned several other points and mentioned
>>them countless times.
>
>
> I see you hammering on only one point again and again, and it all comes
> down to "less typing" in the end.

Not at all. Please read more carefully.

>
>>I either need a separate file or I need an enclosing form.
>>With "toplevel" I mean s-expressions at the outermost level, not
>>nested inside other s-expressions. Now, is that clearer?
>
>
> Yes. It's another version of "less typing." You're quibbling over
> trivialities here. What does it matter whether the dependent forms
> appear inside or outside the parens? Personally, I think it makes more
> sense to put them inside.

Well, I disagree.

>
>
>>I probably understand [SRFI-7] more than you do. I have in fact
>>implemented it once. So please beware of false assumptions.
>
>
> Now you're just making baseless insults. I've implemented it too.
>

I'm insulting you? Hey, I didn't know you are that thin-skinned.
I guess you don't think your remarks to me are insulting, right?

>
>>Huh? Look at some existing Scheme implementations, say, guile, gauche,
>>PLT, chicken, they all use some form of REQUIRE.
>
>
> That's not what I asked for. Produce this "majority of Scheme users,"
> because I'm not going to take your word for it. It doesn't matter
> whether you're convinced; convince us.

No, I don't have to convince anybody. Isn't it wonderful?

>
>
>>I'm a pretty regular reader of c.l.s and of several Scheme mailing
>>lists, and I can't remember hearing any complaints about it. I haven't
>>heard anybody screaming for SRFI-7 either.
>
>
> You haven't been listening very carefully, then

You wouldn't have any URLs handy? Or was it you?

>
>>In what way is it strange? REQUIRE, USE, USE-MODULE - it's all there.
>
>
> They don't provide SRFI-55. They provide some similar functionality,
> with a wide variety of different syntaxes.

Minor differences that can be handled with a few little macros.

>>Your definition of "technically inferior" is strange. Ask PLT users
>>whether they find REQUIRE is technically inferior.
>
>
> I've got one right here: Me. Yes, it's technically inferior.

Well, that of course totally convinces me!

>
> Also, do you really expect PLT users to switch to your syntax, which
> requires even /more/ typing than what PLT already provides? Your own
> arguments work against you here.

I expect those people to switch to SRFI-55 who want to write code that
is portable among several implementations. Not necessarily all, but
several.

cheers,
felix