Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 19:44 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Marc Feeley (01 Nov 2019 20:12 UTC)
The name of "keyword-call" Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 20:45 UTC)
Re: The name of "keyword-call" Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 20:51 UTC)
Re: The name of "keyword-call" John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 20:54 UTC)
Re: The name of "keyword-call" Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 20:59 UTC)
Re: The name of "keyword-call" John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 21:29 UTC)
lambda* Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 21:47 UTC)
Re: lambda* John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 21:48 UTC)
Re: lambda* Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 21:59 UTC)
curry/partial Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 22:18 UTC)
Re: curry/partial John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 22:47 UTC)
Re: The name of "keyword-call" Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (02 Nov 2019 16:22 UTC)
Re: The name of "keyword-call" Lassi Kortela (02 Nov 2019 23:16 UTC)
Re: The name of "keyword-call" hga@xxxxxx (01 Nov 2019 21:34 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Per Bothner (01 Nov 2019 20:57 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 21:06 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (02 Nov 2019 16:21 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (02 Nov 2019 16:42 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax John Cowan (02 Nov 2019 16:48 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (02 Nov 2019 16:57 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Lassi Kortela (02 Nov 2019 23:28 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Lassi Kortela (02 Nov 2019 23:47 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax John Cowan (03 Nov 2019 02:36 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Nov 2019 08:48 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Lassi Kortela (03 Nov 2019 09:56 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Nov 2019 10:27 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Lassi Kortela (03 Nov 2019 11:17 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Nov 2019 11:31 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Lassi Kortela (03 Nov 2019 12:41 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Nov 2019 15:20 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Lassi Kortela (03 Nov 2019 15:40 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Lassi Kortela (03 Nov 2019 15:50 UTC)
Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax John Cowan (03 Nov 2019 19:39 UTC)

Re: Quick vote about portable keyword argument syntax Lassi Kortela 03 Nov 2019 09:56 UTC

Thanks for sticking with the discussion even though your opinions have
been in a minority all this time. I'm confident we can find some way to
do keywords that doesn't preclude hygienic identifiers and doesn't
mandate parsing magic symbols like :foo and foo:. The 177 macros don't
need to be the be-all end-all syntax for using keyword args.

>>>> (let ((:e 3))
>>>>    (keyword-call foo 1 2 :e 4))
>>
>> The `e` keyword argument would get the value 4.
>>
>> The lexical binding (if any) of the symbol would
>> simply be ignored; the symbol would be used for its name only.
>
> Please, don't let us standardize this behavior (maybe as a hack until
> we have proper keywords, but not for inclusion into R7RS-large).

In my view, what matters is the semantics (that lambdas can declare
keyword arguments, and there is some way to call one and supply them). I
also find it important that keyword lambdas can be called like ordinary
lambdas (which allows adding keyword arguments to procedures that did
not take any before, e.g. the port settings in John's pre-draft).

The kw syntax doesn't matter; Scheme can and will have multiple such
syntaxes for many years. So if R7RS-large wants to have a completely
different syntax to define and call keyword lambdas, that's perfectly
fine with me as long as the semantics are compatible with SRFI 177.

> This would be just a wart in the Scheme language, destroying Scheme's
> uniformity.

We call that a macro :)

But seriously, you have a good point and I agree. The reason I think
it's acceptable in this case, is that several Schemes already treat foo:
and/or :foo as a non-identifier. So if you're reading random Scheme code
and see :foo or foo: in there, and don't carefully check which
implementation it was written for, you cannot assume that it is an
identifier.

Hence from my point of view, 1777's call/kw would not really be
introducing new ambiguity to the language; it would just formalize the
old ambiguity. That's not ideal, but I think it's better than the
alternatives where you read foo: or :foo inside a call/kw, and it may or
may not be a keyword object depending on the implementation.

Put yet another way: 8 Scheme implementors as well as DSSSL have already
destroyed the uniformity of identifiers; I'm just documenting the job :)

> Local bindings shadow every identifier, whether bound to
> variables, to macro keywords, pattern variables, or whatever. For
> example, even the ellipsis can be shadowed by a local binding (the
> following expression is not an error but evaluates to the symbol foo):
>
> (let ((... 'foo))
>    (define-syntax bar (syntax-rules () ((bar) ...)))
>    (bar))
>
> Option 2 would destroy part of Scheme's simplicity through uniformity.

I agree. In my view, it's more a question of what is an identifier and
what is not. Currently :foo and foo: are indeed read as identifiers in
most Scheme implementations, but not in all of them, so their status as
an identifier is already unclear. Some implementations even have reader
options that change whether those are read in as identifiers on the fly.

The call/kw abstraction is leaky, because |:foo| and |foo:| with
vertical bars are probably read as identifiers even in all Schemes that
have keyword objects; whereas call/kw would read them as keywords. But
this is getting into really esoteric corner cases.

>>>> So what about the following Option 3?
>>>>
>>>> (keyword-call foo 1 2 : e 5)
>>>>
>>>> In Schemes with a keyword reader syntax, it can be expressed as
>>>>
>>>> (keyword-call foo 1 2 #:e 5)
>>
>> Do you mean that in the case of more than one keyword argument, the
>> colon would be repeated like this:
>>
>> (keyword-call foo 1 2 : e 5 : f 6 : g 7)
>
> Both options are possible (so we have an Option 4) if positional and
> keyword arguments do not have to be mixed.
>
>> That's certainly possible, but I imagine it doesn't look very familiar
>> to people, and they would keep typing the colon and keyword name
>> together (without a space in between) out of habit, since that's what's
>> done in many/most Lisps with keywords.
>
> I don't think we would demand too much from the average Scheme programmer.

It's definitely not too much to demand intelligence- or
sophistication-wise. But IMHO it reads unnaturally, and it's one of
those little things that has to be kept in mind. Good design means
people don't need to think about the details; the intuitive way to do
things is also the right way.

> In the long term, we can hope that "#:key" will be standardized,
> creating a new type of Scheme object that does not clash with the
> semantics of identifiers.

We all agree that would be ideal. 177 just has to do a compatibility
hack in the meantime.

If R7RS-large gets keyword objects, maybe it can use a version of
call/kw that only accepts keyword objects and doesn't try to parse
identifiers. I would not be opposed to that. IMHO R7RS-large can have
keyword arguments without requiring them to be used with the 177 macros.

>> This also doesn't make it obvious what to do about hygienic vs
>> non-hygienic keywords. Would : use a hygienic keyword, and :: (two
>> colons) a non-hygienic one? Or vice versa. We are stuck with the same
>> problems that we have if there is no space after the colon.
>>
>> I guess one more alternative would be having only one delimiter:
>>
>> (keyword-call foo 1 2 : e 5 f 6 g 7)
>>
>> That's very similar to the originally proposed syntax of having the
>> keyewords in a list, but IMHO less clear:
>>
>> (keyword-call foo 1 2 (e 5 f 6 g 7))
>>
>>>> Option 3 is also implementable using syntax-rules alone.
>>
>> That's very nice, but is that true? Is it able to match the ': symbol at
>> the start of a list?
>
> As John wrote, : would exported by SRFI 177 and call/kw would compare
> to the binding of :.

Nice. For this kind of syntax, I would still prefer (call/kw 1 2 3 (a 4
b 5 c 6)) however. Since this is Lisp, I think it's more obvious to use
a list than a delimiter to indicate substructure. Keywords like :foo are
an exception because they've been around for decades so we've grown used
to them.