[Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN
Alex Shinn
(23 Aug 2011 02:31 UTC)
|
Re: practical matters - CSAN
Arthur A. Gleckler
(23 Aug 2011 02:59 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN
John Cowan
(23 Aug 2011 04:57 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN
Aubrey Jaffer
(23 Aug 2011 21:55 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN
Alex Shinn
(24 Aug 2011 00:09 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN
John Cowan
(24 Aug 2011 01:17 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN
Alex Shinn
(24 Aug 2011 01:58 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN
Aubrey Jaffer
(27 Aug 2011 02:58 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN John Cowan (28 Aug 2011 04:41 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN
Aubrey Jaffer
(29 Aug 2011 16:19 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN
Aaron W. Hsu
(29 Aug 2011 16:31 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] practical matters - CSAN
Aubrey Jaffer
(07 Sep 2011 00:19 UTC)
|
Aubrey Jaffer scripsit: > 9 of the 27 use scanf, which should be refactored to be macro-free. It's non-hygienic, so yes. > 2 of the 27 use fluid-let. SLIB developers have been rewriting > modules to avoid fluid-let; only two remain. If the uses of fluid-let are essential, the syntax-rules definition in SRFI 15 could be provided. Alternatively, the uses might be replaceable by parameters. > SRFI 8: receive: Binding to multiple values > SRFI 11: Syntax for receiving multiple values > > Multiple values are addressed in WG1-Scheme. SRFI 11 is provided, and SRFI 8 is a trivial syntax-rules macro. > SRFI 2: AND-LET*: an AND with local bindings, a guarded LET* special form > SRFI 61: A more general cond clause > > No other SLIB modules uses these 2; they could be dropped without > harm. SRFI 2 is readily expressible using syntax-rules. > So 95% of SLIB would survive the transition to being macro-free. Excellent. > SRFI-96 could be amended or superseded. It would be good to know which of its procedures (if any) are no longer needed. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org [T]here is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin. Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may have important survival value. --Ian Johnston _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports