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.

--
And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening
beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from
inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding
and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic
tenebrous ultimate gods --the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul
is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft)   John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org

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