perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 22:21 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 22:38 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ... Shriram Krishnamurthi (20 Jan 2000 22:52 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 23:02 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 22:58 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 23:05 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 23:12 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(21 Jan 2000 07:38 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 22:44 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 23:09 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(20 Jan 2000 23:01 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(20 Jan 2000 23:18 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(20 Jan 2000 23:55 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(21 Jan 2000 01:04 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 01:49 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(21 Jan 2000 02:40 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
thi
(21 Jan 2000 09:58 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 18:36 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(22 Jan 2000 10:32 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(23 Jan 2000 20:02 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(23 Jan 2000 20:50 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(23 Jan 2000 21:25 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(24 Jan 2000 07:30 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Michael Livshin
(24 Jan 2000 16:55 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(25 Jan 2000 07:43 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Michael Livshin
(25 Jan 2000 11:02 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(25 Jan 2000 11:31 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(25 Jan 2000 13:47 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(24 Jan 2000 07:29 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 23:59 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 00:18 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(21 Jan 2000 00:03 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 00:37 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(21 Jan 2000 08:39 UTC)
|
Lars Thomas Hansen wrote: > It's useful for syntactic (rather than procedural) abstraction. Equally, by modifying the meaning of an existing (and dangerous"!") Scheme primitive, it raises the possiblity of bizarre and inadvertent errors, especially through the use existing macro libraries. This is all the more likely given that (a) syntax-rules doesn't support guard expressions, and (b) the default pattern that a programmer would use is of the form ?x -- which matches both the old and new forms. (In contrast, if the default pattern in library code were (?setter ?x ...), then it wouldn't match an identifier, which would be safe -- but this change has it the wrong way around.) 'shriram