New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Arthur A. Gleckler 02 Jul 2020 05:56 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Shiro Kawai 02 Jul 2020 12:50 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types John Cowan 02 Jul 2020 13:19 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 07 Jul 2020 14:23 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types John Cowan 07 Jul 2020 20:32 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 08 Jul 2020 14:27 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 08 Jul 2020 19:47 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 08 Jul 2020 20:21 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types John Cowan 09 Jul 2020 04:32 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 09 Jul 2020 09:30 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types John Cowan 10 Jul 2020 14:05 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 10 Jul 2020 14:39 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 10 Jul 2020 17:30 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 10 Jul 2020 17:50 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 11 Jul 2020 15:22 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 11 Jul 2020 15:30 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 11 Jul 2020 16:17 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Alex Shinn 11 Jul 2020 22:20 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 11 Jul 2020 22:29 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 12 Jul 2020 03:35 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 11 Jul 2020 16:33 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types John Cowan 11 Jul 2020 18:44 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 11 Jul 2020 19:26 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Arthur A. Gleckler 11 Jul 2020 19:59 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 11 Jul 2020 20:06 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Arthur A. Gleckler 11 Jul 2020 20:08 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 14 Jul 2020 09:13 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types John Cowan 14 Jul 2020 21:15 UTC
Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Alex Shinn 15 Jul 2020 00:07 UTC

Re: New draft (#8) of and new "last call" for SRFI 189: Maybe and Either: optional container types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 11 Jul 2020 19:26 UTC

Am Sa., 11. Juli 2020 um 20:44 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:
>
> Rather than doing this, I would prefer to provide `assertion-violation`, `assertion-violation`, and  `assert` from R6RS in a different SRFI.  The last is syntax and therefore has access to the form to be evaluated, so that it can construct its own messages.

We can add this to the proposed change to SRFI 145. And make "assume =
assert" in case of the debug feature identifier set.

> If a procedure contains (assume (pair? x)), then the compiler may indeed assume that and go wrong if x is not a pair, but it may also signal an error or do something else.  Per contra, (assert (pair? x)) is guaranteed to signal an error satisfying `assertion-violation?` if x is not a pair.  It's then straightforward to change one to the other, or in debug mode to have `assume` unconditionally invoke `assert`.

For the purposes of SRFI 189, we don't want an unconditional 'assert',
though. What we want is an 'assume' that delegates to 'assert' unless
we ask for an optimized build.

> Few, if any, R7RS implementations have a way to add features other than those the implementation already provides.

Not at all. There is, for example, SRFI 138, whose "-D" argument is
supported by a number of implementations (Chibi, Larceny, Sagittarius,
...).