Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (15 Aug 2020 11:16 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela (15 Aug 2020 12:09 UTC)
Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (15 Aug 2020 13:10 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values John Cowan (15 Aug 2020 15:19 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (15 Aug 2020 15:34 UTC)
Re: A better name for 'set, a need for a reflection API for SRFI 198?? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:41 UTC)
Do we have a compatible vision for SRFI 198 Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 14:06 UTC)
Re: Do we have a compatible vision for SRFI 198 hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 14:23 UTC)
Decision on foreign-status constructor and accesor syntax Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 14:44 UTC)
Re: Decision on foreign-status constructor and accesor syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 15:31 UTC)
Re: Decision on foreign-status constructor and accesor syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 17:19 UTC)
On the messiness of alists for lists as values hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 17:25 UTC)
Re: On the messiness of alists for lists as values Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 17:39 UTC)
Re: On the messiness of alists for lists as values hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 17:52 UTC)
Re: On the messiness of alists for lists as values Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 18:39 UTC)
Re: On the messiness of alists for lists as values hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 19:04 UTC)
Re: On the messiness of alists for lists as values John Cowan (16 Aug 2020 22:26 UTC)
PC-Scheme for DOS Lassi Kortela (17 Aug 2020 10:07 UTC)
Re: Do we have a compatible vision for SRFI 198 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 14:24 UTC)
Re: Do we have a compatible vision for SRFI 198 John Cowan (17 Aug 2020 02:51 UTC)
Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2020 15:51 UTC)
Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2020 16:17 UTC)
Re: Should foreign-status properties be divided into sets or not? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2020 16:33 UTC)
Re: SRFI 35 (Conditions), SRFI 198, and do we have a compatible vision Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 14:14 UTC)
SRFI 35 compound conditions Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 14:23 UTC)
Re: SRFI 35 compound conditions Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 14:26 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values hga@xxxxxx (15 Aug 2020 16:02 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 07:58 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 12:39 UTC)
Re: Synthetic errno values Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 13:07 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 01:12 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 02:30 UTC)
Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 02:44 UTC)
Re: Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 09:06 UTC)
Re: Split SRFI 198 from generic debugging/inspection? hga@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2020 13:01 UTC)
Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 13:47 UTC)
Re: Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Aug 2020 06:11 UTC)
Re: Matching what other languages give in SRFI 170 errors Lassi Kortela (17 Aug 2020 10:10 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Göran Weinholt (16 Aug 2020 08:55 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 09:02 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 09:11 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Göran Weinholt (16 Aug 2020 09:44 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 10:20 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 11:29 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:18 UTC)
Continuation marks and SRFI 198 Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 11:29 UTC)
Re: Continuation marks and SRFI 198 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (16 Aug 2020 12:52 UTC)
Re: posix-error and a list of scheme procedure arguments Shiro Kawai (16 Aug 2020 11:17 UTC)
Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Lassi Kortela (16 Aug 2020 11:21 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? John Cowan (17 Aug 2020 17:07 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? hga@xxxxxx (17 Aug 2020 18:44 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Shiro Kawai (17 Aug 2020 22:06 UTC)
Re: Passing symbols to say where errors came from? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (18 Aug 2020 06:09 UTC)

Re: Decision on foreign-status constructor and accesor syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 16 Aug 2020 15:31 UTC

Am So., 16. Aug. 2020 um 17:19 Uhr schrieb <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com>:
>
> > From: Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io>
> > Date: Sunday, August 16, 2020 9:44 AM
> >
> >>> By exotic properties I meant ones related SQL, HTTP, IRC and various
> >>> others that are not urgent for SRFI 170.
> >>
> >> But those are items *collected* in the three different types of lists,
> >> right?  Alists, plist, optional arguments at the end of a procedure's
> >> signature are just equivalent ways to collect key/value pairs.  Except
> >> for the trickiness lists as values for alists.
> >
> > Ah, I didn't realize you were talking about which constructors and
> > accessors we should have. I agree that they are equivalent.
> >
> > I strongly recommend that `make-foreign-status` and
> > `raise-foreign-status` take a plist....
>
> Great, we're back in agreement for argument collections, except for
> implicit plist vs. explicit.
>
> > As for whether `foreign-status-keys` or `foreign-status-plist` or
> > `foreign-status-alist` should exist, that's less important still.
>
> If foreign-status-[whatever] is part of the API, and plists are used
> for arguments, then the surface of the API might be smaller if we
> make it foreign-status-plist.  Users won't have to grok both plists
> and alists.

I think this would be okay. See SRFI 125, for example. Constructors
like "hash-table" take plists (for the reasons Lassi gave); while the
accessor "hash-table->alist" returns an alist (and the other accessors
like "hash-table-keys", ... also return lists of the same length as
the alist).

You could even use the same naming convention:

(foreign-status ...) takes a plist
(alist->foreign-status .) takes an alist
(foreign-status->alist .) returns an alist

I think nothing more is needed.

Marc