On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:47 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Bakul Shah scripsit:
>
>> If Scheme (cl)aims to be a high level language, it should leave
>> efficiency issues to implementations and use generic functions
>> where it makes sense.
>
> Scheme is a monomorphic language with two exceptions: trivial parametric
> polymorphism around its "obj" type (for example, the contents of a list
> or vector can be an object), and ad hoc polymorphism of the numeric
> procedures around exact and inexact numbes.  (There is further ad hoc
> numeric polymorphism for many implementations, but there are Schemes
> with only a single representation for exact numbers.)
>
> If you want Common Lisp, Haskell, or Scala, you know where to find them.
>
>> Note that a CL style LOOP macro, as Alex suggests, while more
>> powerful can make compositions uglier (or harder) or "inside
>> out".
>
> There is also SRFI 42, which I personally prefer to loop macros.  There
> will likely be a bonny fight on the subject in WG2.

Since foof-loop is the only sane loop macro ever
proposed for Scheme this is shaping up to be a
fine fight indeed.

--
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports