Re: problems with rationale & design Bradd W. Szonye 23 Jun 2004 23:26 UTC
Please don't send me two copies of every reply. On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:07:11AM +0200, felix wrote: >>> "less typing" is not the main reason .... Bradd wrote: >> It was important enough for you to mention twice, and it's one of the >> only things your proposal seems to offer over SRFI-7, so it looks like a >> key point to me. > Well, then you are wrong. I mentioned several other points and mentioned > them countless times. I see you hammering on only one point again and again, and it all comes down to "less typing" in the end. >>> what also applies is that it doesn't require another pair of parens >>> (i.e. toplevel forms aren't toplevel anymore). >> What? SRFI-7's PROGRAM form does not change top-level forms any more >> than a top-level BEGIN does. You're blatantly misrepresenting SRFI-7 >> here. > I either need a separate file or I need an enclosing form. > With "toplevel" I mean s-expressions at the outermost level, not > nested inside other s-expressions. Now, is that clearer? Yes. It's another version of "less typing." You're quibbling over trivialities here. What does it matter whether the dependent forms appear inside or outside the parens? Personally, I think it makes more sense to put them inside. > I probably understand [SRFI-7] more than you do. I have in fact > implemented it once. So please beware of false assumptions. Now you're just making baseless insults. I've implemented it too. >>> Moreover, I'm absolutely convinced that several, if not the majority >>> of Scheme users (yes, even newbies count), will find it more natural >>> and convenient. >> Produce them, then. What you believe is irrelevant. > Huh? Look at some existing Scheme implementations, say, guile, gauche, > PLT, chicken, they all use some form of REQUIRE. That's not what I asked for. Produce this "majority of Scheme users," because I'm not going to take your word for it. It doesn't matter whether you're convinced; convince us. > I'm a pretty regular reader of c.l.s and of several Scheme mailing > lists, and I can't remember hearing any complaints about it. I haven't > heard anybody screaming for SRFI-7 either. You haven't been listening very carefully, then. >>> Because most implementations already provide it (albeit under >>> different names). >> You're using a strange definition of "already provide it" there. > In what way is it strange? REQUIRE, USE, USE-MODULE - it's all there. They don't provide SRFI-55. They provide some similar functionality, with a wide variety of different syntaxes. >> And your solution is to provide a technically inferior version of the >> same facility? > Your definition of "technically inferior" is strange. Ask PLT users > whether they find REQUIRE is technically inferior. I've got one right here: Me. Yes, it's technically inferior. Also, do you really expect PLT users to switch to your syntax, which requires even /more/ typing than what PLT already provides? Your own arguments work against you here. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd