On 2022-03-16 19:45 +0100, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> Am Mi., 16. März 2022 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
> > You know this, but we are a long way from talking about standardizing
> > curried.  Schemers can happily ignore this Request for Implementation
> > if they don't like what it does.  This is but one stall in the bazaar.
> >
> > I hope the SRFI doesn't give the impression that it's somehow
> > "Haskell with parentheses".  I'll review the rationale, etc..
>
> Maybe the point that is not clear to me is if SRFI 232 tries to solve
> a practical problem, just wants to make the Hemann paper better known,
> wants to make Scheme programming more like Haskell programming, or
> just derives from some fascination with the form originally described
> in that paper. Or, maybe, there's a fifth reason I haven't seen yet.

Part of my intent here *is* to serve Jason Hemann's work on lambda*
faithfully.  After discovering the paper, I enjoyed working with
lambda* enough to think it didn't get the attention it deserved.  It
solves some of the problems with existing currying forms (while
admittedly introducing others), as I wrote in the rationale; I'm not
sure you'd call those "practical problems", but I've never been
entirely happy with the alternatives.

I don't have any committment to "making Scheme more Haskell-like",
but `curried` does make it easier to translate Haskell code into
Scheme.  I've found this useful when translating functions on-the-fly.

As for what "should" or "should not" be curried, I'm not willing to
make such decisions for other people.  I think this is a road to
One True Way thinking, and I don't like that.

> PS Although I don't endorse this SRFI in its current, please don't
> misunderstand my critique in that I want to stop you from getting this
> finalized. Once you are satisfied with this SRFI, by all means, get it
> finalized.

Thanks. :)

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>