[Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Alan Watson
(12 Apr 2012 02:30 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2012 04:09 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines Peter Bex (12 Apr 2012 07:49 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Alex Queiroz
(12 Apr 2012 07:51 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Alaric Snell-Pym
(12 Apr 2012 09:22 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Alex Shinn
(12 Apr 2012 11:52 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Alan Watson
(12 Apr 2012 13:02 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Alex Shinn
(12 Apr 2012 13:46 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Jeronimo Pellegrini
(12 Apr 2012 13:58 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Alan Watson
(12 Apr 2012 16:08 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Marc Feeley
(12 Apr 2012 13:09 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Alex Shinn
(15 Apr 2012 14:32 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
John Cowan
(12 Apr 2012 13:57 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Alex Shinn
(14 Apr 2012 01:58 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
John Cowan
(14 Apr 2012 02:41 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
Alex Shinn
(14 Apr 2012 03:00 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Boolean hemlines
John Cowan
(14 Apr 2012 03:08 UTC)
|
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:09:16AM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Alan Watson scripsit: > > A long time ago, some people made the decision that #t/#f were in > > some sense better than #!true/#!false. More recently, the WG1 have > > made a different decision that #true/#false are in some sense better > > than #t/#f. > > The cases aren't really comparable. #!true and #!false were removed from > the language; #t and #f aren't being removed. > > > This decision is not without cost. If an R7RS Scheme writes a boolean > > datum as #true or #false, it likely cannot be read by a R4RS, R5RS, > > or R6RS Scheme. It is unrealistic and probably undesirable to require > > perfect compatibility between iterations of Scheme, but changing the > > spelling a fundamental data is perhaps unexpected. The WG1 needs to > > decide if this cost is acceptable, and if not either revert their > > decision to allow #true/#false or require write to produce #t/#f. > > I think that's a quality of implementation issue. Currently Chibi is > the only Scheme that accepts #true and #false, and it always prints > #t and #f. I think this #true and #false is a completely gratuitous change, and if anyone has even the slightest problem with it, it should go. It has almost zero benefit. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports