(Previous discussion continued)
Re: SRFI-47 -- types and declarations. Taylor Campbell 25 Nov 2003 21:49 UTC

Re: SRFI-47 -- types and declarations. Taylor Campbell 25 Nov 2003 21:49 UTC

On Thursday, Nov 20, 2003, at 18:56 US/Eastern, Aubrey Jaffer wrote:

> The SLIB array module introduces *no* syntax (and is completely
> portable).  I had included the read syntax in SRFI-47 because SRFI-4
> did!

And it makes sense to introduce reader syntax!  But not the way SRFI 4
does it, as has been shown in its discussion archive and by the
existence of SRFI 10.

> If one can't model on extant SRFIs, then the SRFI process has failed.
> How was I supposed to discover that there are good SRFIs and bad
> SRFIs?  The SRFI-4 "Post-Finalization Discussion Archive" is empty of
> content.

...try the 'Pre-Finalization Discussion Archive,' and nearly all of
the messages there.

> I will remove the read syntax from SRFI-47, which removes many of the
> objections.

Why not provide SRFI 10 reader constructors?  This kind of thing is
_exactly_ what SRFI 10 is for!

Also, I don't think my other questions, those not regarding reader
syntax, were addressed: will there be a follow-up complete array
library to deprecate SRFI 43 and some of SRFI 13? and ARRAY=? is less
general than it could be: why isn't it more like SRFI 1's LIST= or
SRFI 43's VECTOR= ?  I have also come up with another question: why is
there no ARRAY, analogous to VECTOR as MAKE-ARRAY is analogous to
MAKE-VECTOR?