Re: shared-text substrings
Dan Bornstein
(07 Feb 2000 19:59 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Mike Wilson
(08 Feb 2000 17:34 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(08 Feb 2000 17:46 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Per Bothner
(08 Feb 2000 18:06 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(08 Feb 2000 18:16 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Per Bothner
(08 Feb 2000 19:11 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings Shriram Krishnamurthi (08 Feb 2000 20:41 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings Shriram Krishnamurthi 08 Feb 2000 20:40 UTC
Per Bothner wrote: > Even in this context of pure data (as opposed to procedure calls), > builtin keyword support has teh advantage that keywords are > self-evaluating, and they are distinct from normal symbols. The whole point of quoted data is that they are not evaluated, so I see no benefit at all to the fact that keywords are self-evaluating. In a quoted context, I can just as well use symbols, with whatever syntactic form you want. Some people might prefer colons:, others *stars*, and still others <<ducks feet>>. > I don't know where this is coming from - I see keywords as completely > orthogonal to objects. Since others have asked also -- the paper Classes and Mixins (Flatt, Krishnamurthi, Felleisen, POPL 98) elucidates this in (a little) more detail on the first page. The same goes for optional arguments. 'shriram PS: Since this is really diverging from SRFI-13, I think it would be best to take further messages on this to c.l.s.