LC 2 changes
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(10 Jul 2020 02:40 UTC)
|
Re: LC 2 changes
(no sender)
(10 Jul 2020 06:04 UTC)
|
Re: LC 2 changes
John Cowan
(10 Jul 2020 20:21 UTC)
|
Re: LC 2 changes
(no sender)
(10 Jul 2020 20:50 UTC)
|
Re: LC 2 changes
John Cowan
(10 Jul 2020 22:33 UTC)
|
Re: LC 2 changes
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(10 Jul 2020 23:55 UTC)
|
Re: LC 2 changes
John Cowan
(11 Jul 2020 15:13 UTC)
|
Re: LC 2 changes (no sender) (11 Jul 2020 19:09 UTC)
|
Re: LC 2 changes Marc Nieper-WiÃkirchen 11 Jul 2020 19:08 UTC
Thanks for this great compromise. Am Sa., 11. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>: > > Sounds like a good idea, and I am all for it. I've added and pushed a description of either-guard. > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 7:55 PM Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> wrote: >> >> On 2020-07-10 18:33 -0400, John Cowan wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:50 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen < >> > xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote: >> > >> > It is unfortunate that this isn't being resolved by some rationale >> > > argument. You gave an argument about iterating over a list of thunks >> > > but that has been defeated. >> > >> > That was an example rather than an argument. But what can I say? You >> > believe your view is better, I believe mine is, and no one else is saying >> > anything. Since it's my SRFI, I end up making the final decision. >> >> Why not have both, the macro and the procedure? >> >> The example of call-with-values suggests that, if people use a >> thunked procedure frequently, someone will eventually add a dethunked >> form. Since such a form has been proposed and uses basically >> the same implementation as the procedure, we could save someone a >> future SRFI and add it now. >> >> -- >> Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> >> >> "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is >> about telescopes." --pseudo-Dijkstra