Compatible support for multiple values in SRFI-45
Mark H Weaver
(23 Mar 2013 08:56 UTC)
|
Re: Compatible support for multiple values in SRFI-45
Eli Barzilay
(23 Mar 2013 10:27 UTC)
|
Re: Compatible support for multiple values in SRFI-45
Mark H Weaver
(23 Mar 2013 18:53 UTC)
|
Re: Compatible support for multiple values in SRFI-45
Eli Barzilay
(23 Mar 2013 19:24 UTC)
|
Re: Compatible support for multiple values in SRFI-45 Mark H Weaver (26 Mar 2013 10:14 UTC)
|
Re: Compatible support for multiple values in SRFI-45 Mark H Weaver 26 Mar 2013 10:14 UTC
Hi Eli, Eli Barzilay <xxxxxx@barzilay.org> writes: > 30 minutes ago, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> >> I agree that it's unfortunate to destroy the symmetry between >> 'eager' and 'delay', but I see no way to support multiple values >> without either destroying that symmetry or breaking compatibility >> with SRFI-45. > > IMO, having a good, uniform API is *far* more important than keeping > `eager' a function. [...] > >> If you can suggest a better way to add support for multiple values >> that is compatible with SRFI-45, I'd be glad to hear it. > > Write a new short srfi which will say "same as srfi-45, except that > `eager' is a macro", then add multiple values. Seriously. Having thought more on this, I've come to agree with you. It's a mistake to bend over backwards to remain compatible with SRFI-45. It's more important to promote the best API we can come up with. Users wouldn't be able to rely on SRFI-45 having my proposed extension anyway. I think we will abandon this proposed extension for Guile, and leave SRFI-45 alone. Maybe it _is_ time for a new SRFI. Thanks, Mark