Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

(Previous discussion continued)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (04 Jan 2004 18:09 UTC)
Re: no constants please felix (04 Jan 2004 19:28 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (04 Jan 2004 20:06 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (04 Jan 2004 21:39 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (04 Jan 2004 22:09 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (04 Jan 2004 22:58 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:16 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:45 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 11:40 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 16:51 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 17:48 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 18:50 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (05 Jan 2004 18:48 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 22:26 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (06 Jan 2004 07:42 UTC)
I don't believe in "(may GC)" Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:21 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 12:06 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Shiro Kawai (05 Jan 2004 12:45 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" bear (05 Jan 2004 18:16 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 17:00 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" bear (05 Jan 2004 17:53 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 01:39 UTC)
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Michael Sperber (06 Jan 2004 07:39 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:31 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 01:38 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 12:16 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 18:05 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (05 Jan 2004 19:03 UTC)
Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 01:37 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (06 Jan 2004 02:14 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (06 Jan 2004 02:55 UTC)
Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 02:31 UTC)
Re: no constants please Richard Kelsey (06 Jan 2004 03:09 UTC)
Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx (06 Jan 2004 03:14 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (06 Jan 2004 04:32 UTC)

Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx 06 Jan 2004 02:31 UTC

Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@s48.org> writes:

>    Look, the problem here is easy:
>
>    1) Your SRFI demonstrably loses on certain kinds of implementations;
>    2) There is a minor change which will make it not lose.
>
>    Why on earth not prefer number (2)????
>
> Clue me in.  What is the minor change?  A lot of different
> suggestions have been made.

It's like you blow up a building and then complain that there's too
much dust to accurately say anything has been damaged at all.  "Show
me the damaged part of the building."  I can't, the building is gone.

You need a calling convention that allows for implementations to use
*ANY* garbage collection regime they choose.

You need a calling convention that allows for implementations to use
*ANY* style of threads implementation they choose.

You need a syntax that allows implementations to implement eq? and #f
in *ANY* manner they choose.

Repeatedly, you have chosen a view about what makes the C code
prettier which stomps on various ones of these.  Prettiness is fine,
but not to sacrifice correctness.

Your out, each time, has been to say something like "I'm only
interested in this or that subset", and the result is a wasted SRFI.

SCHEME_FALSE should not be assumed to be a C constant; you cannot
assume that eq? and == are the same; you cannot assume that you have
complete control over when other threads run.

There are known ways to write an FFI that do not have these problems,
that are not inefficient, and that work JUST FINE.

With nearly every other SRFI, the point is supposed to be "any scheme
system that has the relevant facility can implement this"; but yours
is "any scheme system that is sufficiently simplistic can implement
this".  The exact opposite!

You have declared your apparent belief that taking the address of a
function in C is some kind of witchcraft.  What gives?

Thomas