Peter Bex scripsit: > It's unfortunate that R7RS mentioned threads here at all: it doesn't say > anything about threads *anywhere* else, in the whole document. It > should've left this undefined: threads are out of scope for the document.
There was a minority argument that parameters were easily implemented in user code, and should therefore be left out of the small language altogether. It was pointed out that the naive implementation given in the SRFI would interact badly with threads, which many Schemes actually do provide. It was undesirable for calling `parameterize` in one thread to randomly affect the value seen in other threads, so we decided to standardize parameters as a facade over existing implementations as much as possible. This meant supporting both Schemes like Chicken and Racket and ones like Gambit, where mutation in one thread affects all parameters that aren't in `parameterize` blocks. The language you complain of was inserted to bar implementations from having both threads and the naive implementation, which would be seen by parameter users as broken. > The way parameters and threads work right now is perfect for CHICKEN, > and there are various libraries that make use of this (most notably > Spiffy, which relies on it heavily). Sure. Don't change a hair for me / Not if you care for me Stay, little Valentine, stay! / Each day is Valentine's Day. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org "Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done." "Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery." _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers