Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 07:00 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Per Bothner
(30 Jun 2013 07:46 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 08:35 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Per Bothner
(30 Jun 2013 15:47 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 17:01 UTC)
|
Re: Last call Per Bothner (30 Jun 2013 17:19 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 17:47 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Per Bothner
(30 Jun 2013 18:04 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 18:29 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Per Bothner
(30 Jun 2013 23:11 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
John Cowan
(01 Jul 2013 20:01 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Shiro Kawai
(30 Jun 2013 09:02 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 09:30 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Shiro Kawai
(30 Jun 2013 09:54 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 10:27 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Shiro Kawai
(30 Jun 2013 11:44 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 17:02 UTC)
|
On 06/30/2013 10:01 AM, Takashi Kato wrote: > On 30/06/2013 17:47, Per Bothner wrote: >> For an input/output port there are two positions - because there are >> actually two separate ports. > I disagree with this. It seems the point is mixed up with Java's problem > and how port should be. IMO input/output port doesn't have to (or even > must not) have two positions and it is one port. No, the issue is not Java, but what a "port" conceptually is (or should be): A "port" is a sequence of values, along with a current position in that sequence. An "input/output port" is not a sequence - it is two sequences, along with two positions. I.e. an input/output port is more naturally viewed as two distinct ports. It is not in itself a port. If you try to extend the concept of port to include input/output ports then you no longer have a concept that has that clean conceptual meaning. Scheme should avoid such concepts. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/