[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile
From: |
Attila Lendvai |
Subject: |
Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:06:28 +0000 |
> There’s no widespread “Maybe” idiom in Scheme; or rather, people use
> TYPE | #f as a way to approximate “Maybe”. It’s not ideal, primarily
> because appropriate handling is not statically checked. Yet, that’s
> what we have and I’m not convinced adding SRFI-189 to the mix would
> bring enough of an improvement to justify it.
>
> Thoughts?
configurations are full of boolean fields, where #f is a valid value.
to represent unset fields, we would essentially need to implement half
of srfi-189 (Maybe and Nothing), and in a potentially buggy way
(e.g. using a symbol like 'disabled to represent an unset field value
(i.e. the current solution) clashes with a field type of symbol?).
i don't think it's worth rolling our own when an srfi covers what we
need.
--
• attila lendvai
• PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
--
“Go find yourself first, so you can find me.”
— Rumi (1207–1273)
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, (continued)
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, Maxime Devos, 2022/01/12
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, Attila Lendvai, 2022/01/13
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, Maxime Devos, 2022/01/13
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, Attila Lendvai, 2022/01/13
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, Attila Lendvai, 2022/01/13
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, Maxime Devos, 2022/01/14
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, Attila Lendvai, 2022/01/17
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, Maxime Devos, 2022/01/13
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, Maxime Devos, 2022/01/13
Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile, Ludovic Courtès, 2022/01/18
- Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile,
Attila Lendvai <=