Re: [PATCH] Implement SRFI-111 Boxes

[Andy Wingo]

A late reply, but at least the year is right :)

On Fri 24 Jan 2014 11:57, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
>
>> Has it been considered to coalesce the box type with Guile's "variable"
>> type?  I can see two concrete differences:
>>
>> * External representation (*not* specified by SRFI-111)
>>
>> * Variables can be "unbound" (empty), boxes can't
>>
>> So we could get away with making the box API consist of aliases to a
>> subset of the variable API and still conform to SRFI-111.
>
> Even though both types are box-like, they represent conceptually
> different things, so I think it’s better to keep them disjoint.

Why do you think so?  To me, Guile's variables are boxes, and the
ability to make a variable unbound is a Guile extension.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/