On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Grant Rettke <grettke@acm.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Jussi Piitulainen
>> <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do all these need to remain in the language? In (scheme base)?
>>
>> We should put them somewhere for compatibility, but
>> I definitely think everything but the one and two depth
>> combinations should be removed from (scheme base).
>> Their use is generally a code smell.  People should
>> use destructuring, records, or SRFI-1 first..tenth accessors.
>
> Is this a case where common practice among Scheme implementation is
> the functions are no longer valued so they are going away?

No, this is a case where the use of those procedures is
almost universally a bad idea, and it takes up space in
what's supposed to be a "small" language.

I've used those procedures myself, and *every* single
time it has been a mistake.  I'd rather they go away so
I'm not tempted, and am forced to properly abstract
from the start.

--
Alex

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