Am Mo., 26. Apr. 2021 um 10:06 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <
xxxxxx@lassi.io>:
> Others may disagree (and want to use Scheme more like a conventional
> language than a mostly purely functional one). So to reach any kind of
> consensus, the libraries in the collection can only be loosely coupled.
> This is okay if there are enough adapters.
This is precisely the principle I have observed in writing SRFIs. Other than my specifically non-portable SRFIs, only comparators and timespecs are architectural dependencies (that is, arguments or results of exposed procedures), though of course there are other dependencies in the sample implementations.
With R[67]RS Scheme, we would end up with dozens and dozens of identifier bindings. I seems that no good solution has been found about this problem, which is usable and fast (in terms of execution speed). Look at the myriads of bindings R7RS-large already specifies and at the criticism about it by people like Per Bothner.
Per is committed to a classical OO implementation of Scheme, so of course monomorphism seems just an annoyance to him. But I concluded a decade ago that there will never be a consensus on the One True OO System (which is why I have ruled out standardizing any of them in R7RS-large (modulo an appeal)), and still less on the One True Class Hier/Heterarchy. As long as the names are kept as consistent as possible, I don't think having lots of them is a burden on the mind, though it may be a burden on the fingers. In addition, fast-generics from Chicken and particular typeclasses should help.
I wouldn't suggest splitting this collection. It just has to be anarchic enough so that there is no bias towards certain idioms.
Well, let us say, to minimize bias. One of the reasons for having so many SRFIs with the same procedures over and over is to help with the problem of "Oh, data structure X is perfect for what I want to do, but it has so few (or no) procedures (that I would have to write myself) that I'll just use lists instead, which have lots of procedures."
John Cowan
http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan xxxxxx@ccil.orgAmerica is not a morally pure country. No country ever has been or ever
will be, but in democratic countries you get things done by compromising
your principles in order to form alliances with groups about whom you
have grave doubts. --Richard Rorty, Achieving Our Country (1998)