At Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:08:09 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Robby Findler scripsit:
>
> > > This makes programs much more difficult to understand, and this
> > > for the sole reason of saving one to write two parens. I don't
> > > think this is worth it.
> >
> > Seems like a pretty abstract argument, esp. when this seems to be
> > common practice and without it, one cannot implement classes or units
> > as macros.
>
> Of course you can.  You just can't pretend that something is a Scheme-level
> variable when in fact it's a member of a class.

At Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:06:22 +0200, Jorgen Schaefer wrote (also in
response to the above):
> This is wrong. [ ... ]

Seesh. Would you guys take the much more awkward clause "one cannot
implement classes or units where variables bound by fields in classes
or imports/definitions in units are not wrapped in parenthesis"?

signing out,
Robby