|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs
Brian Harvey
(14 Jun 2010 14:29 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs
Brian Harvey
(14 Jun 2010 16:39 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs
Eli Barzilay
(14 Jun 2010 17:52 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs
David Rush
(14 Jun 2010 18:35 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs
Eli Barzilay
(15 Jun 2010 01:06 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs Alex Queiroz (15 Jun 2010 01:12 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs
Brian Harvey
(15 Jun 2010 01:15 UTC)
|
||
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Mutable Pairs
David Rush
(15 Jun 2010 06:02 UTC)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
|
(missing)
|
||
Hallo,
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> wrote:
>
> Yes: removes the ability to mutate it, but not remove mutation. But I
> didn't really advocate for that, knowing how unlikely it is. What I
> was hoping to see is a shred of acknowledgment that immutable data is
> preferrable when possible. That having mutable pairs as a default is
> mostly a matter of legacy and compatibility. That somehow Schemers
> are not completely stuck in the 80s. The pretentiousness of generally
> denying any value in immutable data is, IMO, astonishing.
>
Making pairs immutable would really be a big improvement, for all
the reasons stated, however unlikely it is to become reality.
--
-alex
http://www.artisancoder.com/
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports