Re: complexity of mechanism
felix winkelmann
(12 Apr 2006 19:39 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
Eli Barzilay
(12 Apr 2006 20:54 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
felix winkelmann
(13 Apr 2006 06:43 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism Eli Barzilay (13 Apr 2006 07:07 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
felix winkelmann
(13 Apr 2006 08:04 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
Eli Barzilay
(13 Apr 2006 08:26 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
felix winkelmann
(13 Apr 2006 09:44 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
John Cowan
(13 Apr 2006 11:43 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
John Cowan
(13 Apr 2006 11:52 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
Eli Barzilay
(13 Apr 2006 12:58 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
felix winkelmann
(13 Apr 2006 13:15 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
Eli Barzilay
(13 Apr 2006 13:07 UTC)
|
Re: complexity of mechanism
feeley
(13 Apr 2006 14:07 UTC)
|
On Apr 13, felix winkelmann wrote: > > Whether you use roll-your-own keywords by taking symbol/value pairs, > or whether you wrap up arguments in a data-structure - there _are_ > ways to handle the problem of complex argument lists, and that don't > require you to fix every call-site (please avoid redundant arguments > in which situation what is to be preferred - I'm sure you get the > gist of what I'm saying). (I'm almost tempted to ask for such ways, but after hashing this for way too many times I know what to expect.) > [...] It's just to easy to put a keyword-enabled interface onto > everything. [...] and that's a very good argument for this srfi. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!