[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators

From: Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add SRFI: srfi-121; generators
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 19:24:24 +0200
User-agent: mu4e 1.4.10; emacs 26.3

Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <> writes:
>>> While I have been contributing to R7RS-large, I have to agree with you
>>> to some extent. Most of the SRFIs that have been voted into R7RS-large
>>> or are to be submitted for it don't have the quality of the R6RS or
>>> R7RS(-small) specifications
>> Inevitably so.  A large granite boulder cannot be cut like a diamond, but it 
>> has uses that a diamond does not (and vice versa, of course).
> There's already a large granite boulder called Python. When we want to
> advertise R7RS-large, which differences shall we point out (apart from
> the Lisp syntax)?

What I would like to see is a reduction step at the end. With Python we
have urllib, urllib2 and urllib3. Scheme offers the chance to clean up 

What Scheme brings to the table are multiple implementations for
different use-cases, along with a real standard.

Also first-class macros.

Though that doesn’t mean that letting quality lapse won’t hurt.

Do we actually have to take SRFI without changes into r7rs-large? Isn’t
an advantage of a standard that it can smooth out all those rough edges
you get when you bring together parts that were developed in isolation?

Best wishes,
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]