Design aesthetics Lassi Kortela 20 Apr 2021 08:31 UTC
> My subjective impression may be wrong. Maybe it is just that SRFI 210 > has turned into something that looks like an "amorphous" idea only > because of the following discussions. The situation is identical to SRFI 177, Portable keyword arguments. Both came down to an aesthetic judgment. 177 worked as is, but no-one other than me liked the surface syntax, and you thought it should support a more complete set of semantics (e.g. custom default values for keyword args) whereas I was deliberately in favor of limited semantics. This one also works, but no-one other than me likes the syntax, and you would like more complete semantics whereas I like the limited ones. These are good outcomes - these discussions have taught me a lot about aesthetics and made me question my assumptions. Scheme is a master class in design. I still don't have a clear opinion on whether completeness is a good or bad quality in the general case.