Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

where is srfi-17 going? Per Bothner (23 Jan 2000 21:32 UTC)
where is srfi-17 going? Shriram Krishnamurthi (23 Jan 2000 22:03 UTC)
Re: where is srfi-17 going? Per Bothner (23 Jan 2000 23:18 UTC)
Re: where is srfi-17 going? Shriram Krishnamurthi (24 Jan 2000 02:17 UTC)
Re: where is srfi-17 going? Michael Livshin (24 Jan 2000 11:01 UTC)
Re: where is srfi-17 going? Mikael Djurfeldt (24 Jan 2000 16:27 UTC)
Re: where is srfi-17 going? Mikael Djurfeldt (24 Jan 2000 17:25 UTC)

Re: where is srfi-17 going? Michael Livshin 24 Jan 2000 10:57 UTC

Shriram Krishnamurthi <xxxxxx@cs.rice.edu> writes:

> Per Bothner wrote:
>
> > Still, there are at least two Scheme dialects that *do* implement
> > extended set!, so it seemed to make sense to make a srfi for it.
>
> In the abstract, yes, it makes sense.  But you said the other
> implementation is Guile, which (imo) isn't reeking of design taste.
> Indeed, I hope the SRFI process can be just as fruitfully applied in
> reverse: to use the discussions on SRFI lists to improve existing
> Scheme implementations.

another one is STk.

> I would note that nobody from the Guile community has spoken up to
> defend Guile's decision to add extended SET!, or addressed any of the
> objections that have come up to it.  I'm CCing this message to Mikael
> Djurfeldt, an active Guile proponent, in the hope that the only reason
> we haven't heard from the Guile community is that nobody from there is
> reading this thread (which would itself be sad).

I count at least two people (including myself).

as to the discussion at hand:

I, like Per, have not so far seen a convincing argument against the
conflated mutator syntax.  and I don't like the idea of multiplying
syntax gratuitiously, but that's just me.

> 'shriram

--mike

--
The whole idea of modules is so separatist, anyway.  Can't we all just
get along?                                               -- Jim Blandy