keyword fox?
Lassi Kortela
(07 Mar 2020 13:44 UTC)
|
Re: keyword fox?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(07 Mar 2020 14:26 UTC)
|
Re: keyword fox? Lassi Kortela (07 Mar 2020 14:46 UTC)
|
Re: keyword fox?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(07 Mar 2020 14:51 UTC)
|
Re: keyword fox?
John Cowan
(07 Mar 2020 14:53 UTC)
|
Re: keyword fox?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(07 Mar 2020 15:58 UTC)
|
Re: keyword fox?
John Cowan
(07 Mar 2020 23:58 UTC)
|
Re: keyword fox?
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(08 Mar 2020 08:53 UTC)
|
Re: keyword fox? Lassi Kortela 07 Mar 2020 14:46 UTC
> The answer here is SRFI 159/166. :) Since this SRFI came after 159 and 166 had been out for a while, we should assume Joo has a good reason to eschew the DSL approach for some applications (a comparison in SRFI 183's rationale would be useful). > So this is also a wonderful case study for general keyword arguments vs > some tailored DSL. That's true. I tend to favor DSLs if there is plenty of time to explore the problem from all angles, or if the problem is complex enough that the solution requires multiple procedures anyway. On the other hand, keyword arguments may be less likely to make a mess if there is not enough time for thorough design and experimentation. In fox's case, it's only a single procedure, so keywords would probably be a win unless more comprehensive formatting is desired (for which SRFI 159/166 are good solutions).